Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39743862›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2024

Comparing the Impact of Titanium and Stainless Steel Retainers on Lower Incisor Stability, Periodontal Health, and Retainer Survival: A Preliminary Study.

Melis Seki Yurdakul, Pamir Meriç

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Melis Seki YurdakulPrivate Practice, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-0755
Pamir MeriçTrakya University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Edirne, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-4655-5664

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to compare the impact of titanium and stainless steel (SS) retainer wires on lower incisor stability and periodontal health. Methods: Fifty patients between the ages of 14.1 and 29.5 years were recruited for the study. The impact of 0.027x0.011-inch rectangular titanium dead-soft wire retainers was compared with that of 0.0215-inch six-stranded SS wire retainers. The retainers were bonded to the mandibular arch, and 3D models were evaluated after completion of the orthodontic treatment (T1), at the third month (T2), and at the sixth month (T3). Little's irregularity index (LII), the intercanine width, the pocket depth, the plaque index, bleeding on probing, and retainer survival were analyzed. The generalized linear model method was used to compare scores on LII, the intercanine width, the pocket depth, and plaque index values. Cochran's Q test was used to compare intragroup bleeding. Results: A significant increase was found in the irregularity index parameter according to time (p=0.004) but no statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of the LII according to material and time (p=0.826). No significant difference was found in intercanine width parameters between the groups according to material and time (p=0.977). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of pocket depth and plaque index scores, according to material and time. No retainer failure was observed in either group. Conclusion: Both retainer wires offer successful results in terms of stability parameters and periodontal parameters after six months.

Indexed as

Fixed orthodontic retentionorthodontic splintorthodontic stabilityperiodontal healthstainless steel retainertitanium retainer

Identifiers

PMID39743862
PMCPMC11705192

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.