Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2025
Comparison of treatment stability among maxillary round multi-strand wire, chairside rectangular chain and vacuum formed retainers: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: To compare the effect of three different maxillary retainers: round multi-strand stainless steel (SS), rectangular white gold-plated SS, and vacuum-formed (VF) retainers on treatment stability, retainer integrity, and gingival health over 12 months. Materials and Methods: Seventy subjects who finished fixed orthodontic treatment and required orthodontic retainers in the upper arch were randomly divided into three groups. The first group (mean age: 21.0 years) received bonded three multi-strand round (0.0175-inch) SS retainer, the second group (mean age: 20.4 years) received bonded rectangular (0.038 × 0.016-inch) white gold-plated SS retainer, the third group (mean age: 20.0 years) received removable VF retainer. Bonded retainers were extended from lateral to lateral incisor while VF retainer was extended to the most distal molar. After 1 year, all subjects were recalled. The primary outcome was to assess relapse in upper labial segment alignment. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) of the upper labial segment teeth and retainer failure rate. Results: There was no statistical difference in the average irregularity index (IRI), PI, and GI among the three groups (P = .667, P = .781, P = .487, respectively). Retainer failure rate was significantly higher in Group III (60.9%) compared to Group I (20.8%) and Group II (34.8%, P = .017). Conclusions: After 1 year, anterior tooth alignment stability and gingival health parameters were not different between bonded and VF retainers. However, the VF retainer exhibited a higher failure rate compared to bonded retainers.
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.