Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
A randomized controlled trial comparing retainers in bimaxillary proclination cases.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04578704 (Stability of Bimaxillary Proclination Cases Following Fixed Appliances Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Stability of Bimaxillary Proclination Cases Following Fixed Appliances Treatment: A Randomized Control Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Abstract
introductionThere is currently no recommendation for retaining corrected bimaxillary proclination cases. This study aimed to compare retention protocols for maintaining stability of such cases. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-center, single-blinded parallel control trial, 27 participants were assigned to three groups using block randomization with a 1:1:1 allocation ratio; fixed bonded retention (FBR), vacuum-formed retention (VFR), and dual retention (DR) comprising both types. Data were collected every 3-months from debond (T0) for 12 months (T4). The primary outcomes measured changes in soft and dental tissue parameters on traced lateral cephalograms. Secondary outcomes included intra-arch changes and the oral health impact profile (OHIP-14[M]). This trial was registered with Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04578704).
resultsAt T4, the upper lip, lower lip, and upper incisors moved anteriorly (mean difference (MD) of 1.63 mm (SD 3.7), 0.48 mm (SD 1.1), and 0.54 mm (SD 0.97), respectively). The upper and lower incisors were proclined by 0.96 degrees (SD 2.1) and 1.11 degrees (SD 2.63), respectively. The interincisal angle was reduced by 0.56 degrees (SD 1.23). Only the upper incisor inclination (UII) change showed significant differences between groups (η² = 0.296; p = 0.015). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the FBR and VFR groups exhibited greater proclination than the DR group (UII, MD = 3.33 degrees and 3.22 degrees, respectively). No differences were observed in OHIP-14[M] scores between the groups.
conclusionAll three retention protocols showed statistically small but clinically insignificant changes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dual retention offers better control in preventing upper incisor proclination in bimaxillary proclination cases.
trial registrationThis trial was registered with Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04578704).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39912971What 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.