Trial reportEuropean journal of orthodontics2024
Stability, survival, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization of CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded fixed retainers in orthodontic patients: a 2-year follow-up of a two-centre randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04389879 (CAD/CAM Fixed Retainers vs. Conventional Multistranded Fixed Retainers in Orthodontic Patients. Comparison of Stability, Retainer Failure Rate, Adverse Effects, Cost-effectiveness, and Patient Satisfaction. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
CAD/CAM Fixed Retainers vs. Conventional Multistranded Fixed Retainers in Orthodontic Patients. Comparison of Stability, Retainer Failure Rate, Adverse Effects, Cost-effectiveness, and Patient Satisfaction. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of different orthodontic retainers on dental arch stability and periodontal health: a systematic review with pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Debonding characteristics of innovative 3D-printed lingual retainers following artificial aging and acid challenge.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Clinical integration and utilization patterns of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) fixed lingual retainers: A national survey of orthodontists.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
- Success Rates of a CAD/CAM Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Fixed Retainer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Are Conventional Impressions Obsolete? A Narrative Review on the Applicability of Intraoral Scanners.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Post-treatment stability after insertion of CAD/CAM fabricated or Conventional fixed orthodontic retainers: a two-year follow-up.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Debonding forces and failure modes of customized three-dimensional printed nano-ceramic hybrid resin fixed lingual retainers.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) fixed retainers (FRs) as an alternative to multistranded FRs to maintain orthodontic treatment outcome.
objectivesThe primary aim was to compare CAD/CAM versus conventional multistranded FRs in terms of stability until 2 years. Secondary outcomes were failure rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-minimization. TRIAL
design2-arm parallel, two-centre randomized controlled trial.
methodsPatients were randomized to CAD/CAM or conventional FRs in both arches, in a 1:1 ratio and blocks of four. Allocation concealment was secured by using sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded. FRs were bonded at the end of treatment, and patients were recalled after 12 and 24 months. First-time retainer failures were recorded and digital impressions were taken. Arch widths and lengths, as well as Little's Irregularity Index (LII), were measured. Additionally, patients answered satisfaction questionnaires. Linear mixed models were applied for measurements and patient satisfaction. Survival analyses were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves, along with Cox-regression modelling. Cost-minimization analysis was undertaken.
resultsOne hundred and eighty-one patients were randomized (98 in Centre 1, and 83 in Centre 2): 90 in CAD/CAM and 91 in conventional group. One hundred and fifty three patients attended T24 follow-up. There were no significant differences in LII and arch dimensions between groups for failure-free patients. Within 24 months, 34% maxillary CAD/CAM FRs and 38% maxillary conventional FRs failed, along with 42% mandibular CAD/CAM FRs and 40% mandibular conventional FRs, with no significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratios conventional to CAD/CAM: maxillary arch: 1.20 [P = 0.46], mandibular arch: 0.98 [P = 0.94]). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between groups. No harms were observed. Cost-minimization analysis showed that CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs.
conclusionsThere were no clinically significant differences in LII, arch widths, and lengths between CAD/CAM and conventional FRs after 24 months. There were no differences in failures and patient satisfaction between groups. CAD/CAM FRs were slightly cheaper than conventional FRs.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04389879.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.