Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38488436›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2024

Environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic dental retainers: a comparative life-cycle assessment of Hawley and Essix retainers.

Timothy You Da Tan, Brett Duane, Ahmed Hussein, Anna Samsonova, Gwenola Sizun, Loujin Shakerdi, Roqaya Taqi, Samuel Wolfram, Nazanin Ziaeefard, Darius Sagheri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Timothy You Da TanSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Brett DuaneSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Ahmed HusseinSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Anna SamsonovaSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Gwenola SizunSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Loujin ShakerdiSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Roqaya TaqiSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Samuel WolframSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Nazanin ZiaeefardSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Darius SagheriSchool of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnvironmental sustainability has been brought into the limelight due to the global climate crisis. This crisis is driven by human activities and even the healthcare sector is no exception. Within dentistry, orthodontics is a large global market; hence, the use of post-orthodontic retainers has a significant environmental footprint. The aim of this study was to determine the environmental sustainability of post-orthodontic retention using Hawley and Essix retainers. MATERIALS AND

methodsA comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to compare the environmental impact of both retainers. All inputs and outputs were accounted for using the Ecoinvent database, v3.7.1, and openLCA software. Sixteen impact categories were used to determine their environmental burden.

resultsOf the 16 impact categories, the Hawley had a greater environmental burden than the Essix retainer in 12 categories. The Hawley's most significant contributors to its impact values are factory manufacturing and in-house production, with an average of 41.45% and 52.52%, respectively. For the Essix, the greatest contributor is factory manufacturing, with an average of 64.63%. However, when factoring in the lifespan of the retainers, the Essix would have a greater environmental impact than the Hawley retainer. LIMITATIONS: This study employed a comparative LCA. There were also assumptions made, but these were supported by research.

conclusionsOn the basis of the evidence gathered in this study, Hawley retainers are more environmentally sustainable than Essix retainers. These results would better enable clinicians to factor in the environmental impact and make informed decisions on the choice of retainer type.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Appliance DesignOrthodontic RetainersHumanscarbon footprintenvironmentlife-cycle assessmentorthodontic retainerssustainability

Identifiers

PMID38488436
PMCPMC10941639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.