ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2024
Have orthodontists changed their retention and follow-up protocols due to contemporary orthodontics? An online survey.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wire Syndrome Associated with Multistrand Orthodontic Retainers: A Proposed Etiopathogenic Concept.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With advancements in orthodontic technology, treatment durations have shortened, often concluding at earlier ages. This shift prompts scrutiny of contemporary retention and post-treatment protocols. The study aimed to assess current professional preferences, compare them against patient age and treatment duration, and investigate the potential impacts of reduced treatment times on professional protocols, particularly when treatment concludes before pubertal growth. Methods: A questionnaire comprising 12 multiple-choice questions focused on active treatment and retention phases was developed using an online survey platform. It was distributed to licensed orthodontists engaged in patient treatment. Bivariate analysis was conducted using ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test, with pairwise comparisons facilitated by the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner method. Results: Of 743 respondents, representing a 32% response rate, approximately 70% reported initiating treatment with fixed appliances in pre-pubertal patients. The most prevalent treatment combination involved commencing treatment during early permanent dentition and lasting between 12 to 24 months, resulting in treatment completion before full growth maturation. No discernible individualization was observed in retention protocols or post-retention follow-ups. Traditional retainer prescription post-orthodontic therapy was unanimous among respondents. Notably, experienced orthodontists tended to prefer regular patient visits for follow-up, while less experienced counterparts discharged patients after 12 months. Conclusion: Contemporary orthodontic treatments are characterized by shorter durations, yet orthodontists have not adopted retention and post-treatment follow-up practices accordingly. There is a pressing need for evidence-based guidelines to develop protocols tailored to the shorter treatment durations and the increasing prevalence of younger patients completing treatment.
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.