ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
Dutch dentists' involvement in orthodontic retention: monitoring, opinions, competence and communication gaps.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. 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.
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Orthodontic Retention Practices and Opinions Among General Dental Practitioners in Australia.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo assess Dutch dentists' experience, competence and opinions on various aspects of orthodontic retention with bonded retainers and identify any gaps that may exist in practice and communication. MATERIALS/
methodsA web-based questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected general dentists, covering their (i) experience, competence and opinion in bonded retainer monitoring and maintenance, (ii) knowledge of unintentional active bonded retainers, (iii) responsibility for bonded retainers, and (iv) orthodontic practitioners' communication.
resultsThe response rate was 23.6% (n = 236). Orthodontic treatment was performed by 24% of dentists. Dentists were familiar with follow-up (98%), repairs (95%) and placement (77%) of bonded retainers. The more hours involved in treatment, the more competent they felt in repairing BRs (P = .025). However, over a quarter felt insufficiently competent in repairing (26%) and placement (33%) of bonded retainers. When patients requested their dentist to remove their bonded retainer, 89% informed them about possible consequences, and 41% referred them to their orthodontic practitioner. Awareness of torsional movements of anterior teeth due to unintentionally active bonded retainers was high (77%). Almost two thirds (64%) believed that dentists should check bonded retainers one year after placement. Respondents felt insufficiently informed by orthodontic practitioners regarding several aspects of the retention phase. One-third (34%) would appreciate additional training. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study are the low response rate, which could result in non-response bias, and the focus on bonded retainers only. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Dutch dentists are well informed about the possibility of torsional movements due to unintentionally active bonded retainers. Clear communication between orthodontic practitioners and dentists is essential for effective long-term follow-up and shared responsibility. Knowledge and skills regarding monitoring and maintenance of bonded retainers should be integrated into dental curricula and postgraduate courses.
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.