ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
A Cross-Sectional Survey of Orthodontic Retention Practices and Opinions Among General Dental Practitioners in Australia.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate orthodontic retention opinions and practices of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Australia. MATERIALS AND
methodsA piloted electronic survey was distributed to dentists via Australian Dental Association communication channels. Survey questions related to respondent demographics, opinions regarding preferred retainer choice and protocols, factors concerning retainer choice and the management of retainers.
resultsData from 683 GDP respondents were received and analyzed. Most (n = 351; 51.4%) indicated that they offered no orthodontic treatment services whereas 332 (48.6%) offered limited or comprehensive orthodontics. The clear plastic retainer and bonded retainer (BR) combined was most prescribed by GDPs in the maxilla (40.0%-45.5%) and mandible (40.6%-52.4%). GDPs who offered orthodontic services were more likely (p < 0.01) to always or mostly replace or repair (p < 0.01) BRs than those who did not. Between 57.8% and 61.2% of respondents were very or somewhat concerned that BRs may be associated with periodontal problems over the long term. Most (n = 445; 83%) indicated that they would like the treating orthodontist to inform them that treatment had been completed. Between 68.1% and 72.2% would like to be informed by the orthodontist about patients' retention protocols. Respondents who offered orthodontic services were more likely to recommend patients bring their removable retainers to review or treatment appointments (p < 0.01).
conclusionDifferences in opinion regarding the management of the retention phase between GDPs in Australia who offered orthodontic services and those who did not were observed. It is essential that the orthodontic profession develop guidance and education regarding the management of the retention phase.
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.