ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2024
Accuracy of lingual fixed retainers fabricated using a CAD/CAM bending machine.
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of CAD/CAM titanium fixed lingual retainer versus conventional stainless steel fixed retainer (randomized controlled clinical trial).Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Robotic and Manual Bending of Clasps for Removable Partial Dentures.International dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lingual fixed retainers, made from 0.0175-inch 3-strand twisted stainless steel wire (TW) and 0.016 × 0.022-inch straight rectangular wire (RW), are generally used in clinical practice. This study aimed to calculate their accuracy by comparing the discrepancy between computer-aided customized retainers made from these two types of wires. Methods: Eleven orthodontic patients were selected, resulting in 22 maxillary and mandibular three-dimensional printing dental models. Two types of lingual fixed retainers were bonded from canine to canine. To determine the accuracy, five points were chosen for each model, resulting in 110 selected points. The absolute values of the distances on the x-, y-, and z-axes were measured to compare the accuracy of the two types of computer-aided retainers. Results: The accuracy of the two types of retainers did not differ significantly in the x- and z-axes, but only in the y-axis ( Conclusions: Both types of retainers showed high accuracy; however, RW had a slight but statistically significant difference along the y-axis compared with TW. This type of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing bending machine is limited to two dimensions, and the dental arch is curved. Therefore, RW may require slight manual adjustment by the practitioner after manufacturing.
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.