Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Effectiveness of CAD/CAM titanium fixed lingual retainer versus conventional stainless steel fixed retainer (randomized controlled clinical trial).
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. Cited by 2 papers, 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of different orthodontic retainers on dental arch stability and periodontal health: a systematic review with pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetention after orthodontic treatment is crucial to maintain aligned teeth and prevent relapse. Traditional fixed retainers, made from multistranded stainless steel wires, are effective but have drawbacks such as operator variability, long chair-time, and risk of biofilm accumulation. Recent advancements in computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology proposed custom-designed fixed retainers as a modern solution. THE AIM OF THIS TRIAL: Primary aim was to evaluate the alignment stability of CAD/CAM grade 5 titanium (Ti5) versus stainless steel lingual fixed retainers. Secondary aim was to assess periodontal health over 6-months.
methodsA single-center, two-arm, parallel randomized controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio was carried out to address the aims of the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two equal groups: Group I received Ti5 CAD/CAM lingual retainers; Group II received conventional 8-strand braided stainless-steel fixed retainers. Both retainers were bonded directly on the six mandibular anterior teeth. Measurements were performed at 3 time points: immediately after retainer placement (T0), after 3 months (T3) and after 6 months (T6). Intercanine Width, Little’s Irregularity Index and tooth movements in buccolingual, mesiodistal, occluso-gingival and rotational directions were recorded for each tooth by superimposition of digital models. In addition, periodontal parameters (Plaque index, Gingival index, Probing depth and Bleeding on probing) were assessed.
resultsInitially, 54 patients were screened for eligibility. A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned, completed follow-up, and were included in the analysis. The used test for comparison between variance were Chi-square, Welch’s t test and Greenhouse-Geisser test. Inter-canine width showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups at T0, T3, or T6 (p = 0.769, p = 0.440 and p = 0.827 respectively). Little’s Irregularity Index revealed no statistically significant difference between the two retainers at T0 (p = 0.123), T3(p = 0.562) and T6(p = 0.611). No significant changes in tooth positions were observed in the two groups. The mean change of Gingival index showed a significant decrease in CAD/CAM group compared to conventional at (T3 and T6 p = 0.001). The periodontal parameters were significantly better in the CAD/CAM retainers after 6-months.
conclusionsTi5 CAD/CAM and conventional retainers are effective in maintaining intercanine width. Ti5 CAD/CAM retainers are capable of maintaining tooth position in three dimensional directions. Ti5 CAD/CAM retainers showed less deterioration of the periodontium in short-term observation.
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.