Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38556949›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2024

The Common Retention Practices Among Orthodontists from Different Countries.

Mohammed Almuzian, Samer Mheissen, Haris Khan, Fahad Alharbi, Emad Eddin Alzoubi, Mark Brian Wertheimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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. Trial
  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

6 authors.

Mohammed AlmuzianUniversity of Edinburgh, DclinDent, Department of Orthodontics, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1696-6649
Samer MheissenPrivate Practice, Department of Orthodontics, Damascus, Syria.ORCID 0000-0002-2129-8497
Haris KhanCMH Lahore Medical College and Institute of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-3100-2677
Fahad AlharbiPrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, College of Dentistry, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-2083-1528
Emad Eddin AlzoubiUniversity of Malta, Department of Orthodontics, Msida, Malta.ORCID 0000-0002-2083-1528
Mark Brian WertheimerPrivate Practice, Department of Orthodontics, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-2547-4117

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the most common retention practices, factors influencing the retention protocol, and the differences among orthodontists regarding retention practices. Methods: An online validated questionnaire was anonymously sent to 3,000 orthodontic residents and clinicians. The survey consisted of 19 questions regarding the participants' demographics, prescribed retention appliances, factors affecting retention appliance choices, and adjunctive retention procedures. Descriptive statistics, Chi2 and Kendall's Tau-b tests were applied. Results: Five hundred fifty-five orthodontic residents and clinicians, 53.3% males and 46.7% females, completed the survey, indicating a response rate of 18.5%. Although participants' demographics, type of treatment and pre-treatment malocclusion influence the choice of retention protocols, thermoplastic retainers (TR) were the most popular retention regime for the maxillary arch for both adults (47.4%) and adolescents (42.3%). Bonded retainers (BR) were the favored option for the mandibular arch (44.9% of adults and 40.7% of adolescents). The degree of arch expansion (64.1%) and the degree of interdigitation (50.1%) after treatment were the most influential factors for the choice of the preferred type of retainers by the respondents. 68.6% of the participants thought professional retention guidelines would be useful. Conclusion: Thermoplastic retainers were the most common retention appliances for adults and adolescents in the maxilla. At the same time, BR was the most favored retainer in the mandibular arch, with clinical experience, practice setting, and malocclusion- and treatment-related factors influencing the type of the chosen appliance. The demographic differences and the uneven participation in the survey need to be considered while interpreting the findings of this study.

Indexed as

onlineorthodonticretentionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID38556949
PMCPMC10986458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.