ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Effectiveness of the NOLA Dry Field device as an isolation system for bonding lower lingual retainers.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The retention stage has been the most controversial phase of orthodontic treatment, as there are no specific guidelines regarding the type, mode and duration of retention. The detachment of a retainer creates urgency, necessitates additional consultation time and increases the risk of tooth movement. Therefore, ensuring the stability of a retainer and preventing detachment is crucial, particularly as saliva moisture poses a risk during bonding. Material and Methods: This pilot study employs an epidemiological, observational, descriptive and longitudinal design to compare the failure rates of lower lingual retainers cemented with the NOLA retractor against those cemented with the Spandex retractor. The sample comprised 32 participants, with 16 each in the NOLA group and the relative isolation group. The NOLA group included 10 men (62.5%), while the isolation group had only 3 men (18.7%). The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the Student's t-test was applied to compare changes between the NOLA and relative isolation groups. Results: The failure rate was higher in the relative isolation group (37.5%) compared with the NOLA group (25.0%), although this difference was not statistically significant ( Conclusions: Both isolation methods demonstrated similar success rates in retaining fixed retainers over the analysed time period.
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.