ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2024
Retention preferences and protocols of Brazilian orthodontists: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the orthodontic retention protocols used by Brazilian orthodontists.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 693 orthodontists who answered a web-based questionnaire with 22 questions regarding the participants' characteristics, their retainers' prescriptions, follow-up duration, and appliance fabrication.
resultsA 20.84% response rate was recorded. Most orthodontists reported working in private dental offices (94.7%), and female practitioners comprised 59.9% of the respondents. The mean age of the orthodontists was 41.05 years, and the mean time practicing as an orthodontist was 11.28 years. For the maxillary arch, most orthodontists (57.9%) declared to use the Hawley retainer, and for the mandibular arch, 49.1% use the bonded retainer. Regarding the retention phase duration, 85.6% recommend using a permanent retainer for the mandibular arch; and for the maxillary arch, 36.2% recommended using it for 1 to 2 years. The main reason that led orthodontists to choose a retention design was related to the initial malocclusion characteristics (72.9%), and the most mentioned explanation for choosing the retainer type and protocol was clinical experience (44.5%). Most orthodontists (85.3%) would like to have access to general guidelines/protocols for retention procedures after orthodontic treatment.
conclusionsAccording to the answers, retention protocols varied among Brazilian orthodontists. Brazilian orthodontists preferred to use a Hawley retainer in the maxillary arch and a fixed straight retention bonded from canine to canine (3x3) in the mandibular arch.
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.