SynthesisJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2026
Which orthodontic retainer provides the best stabilization? : Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of the present systematic review (SR) was to compare available retainers to determine which one has the highest probability of maintaining a stable post-orthodontic outcome.
methodsElectronic platforms were searched up to 20 January 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different retainers in stabilizing post-orthodontic tooth position (PROSPERO no. CRD42023399604). The Cochrane checklist was used for risk of bias assessment. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted for the Little irregularity index (LII), intercanine width (ICW), and intermolar width (IMW) to identify metric ranking markers (highest probability of being the best [PBB], surface under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRA], and mean ranking [MR]) for the different retention protocols.
resultsEighteen RCTs were included in the SR, and 15 in the NMA. Seven studies were at high risk of bias, 7 at moderate, and 4 at low risk of bias. The retainers were categorized into 14 groups for analyzing LII, 13 for ICW, and 8 for IMW. The NMA on LII indicated that computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) multistrand stainless steel (SS), followed by laboratory round multistrand SS and rectangular flex SS retainers had the highest PBB in maintaining a low LII. The NMA on ICW suggested that CAD/CAM multistrand SS followed by CAD/CAM NiTi and spring hard SS retainers have the highest PBB in maintaining ICW. Very limited evidence showed a low PBB for removable retainers related to LII and ICW. No difference between groups was observed for IMW.
conclusionThere is moderate-to-low quality evidence that CAD/CAM and laboratory-bent multistrand SS followed by rectangular flex SS retainers might be the most effective retention protocol for maintaining a low LII over a short-to-mid-term follow-up, whereas CAD/CAM multistrand SS, CAD/CAM NiTi, and spring-hard wire retainers might be most effective in maintaining ICW. Intermolar width tends to decrease, but this does not seem to be influenced by the type of retention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41331118What 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.