Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Transfer accuracy of three different virtually designed CAD/CAM retainers - baseline results of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the immediate three-dimensional (3D) transfer accuracy of three virtually designed CAD/CAM lingual retainers fabricated from nickel–titanium (NiTi), titanium grade 5 (Ti5), and cobalt–chromium (CoCr). The investigation represents the baseline (T = 0) phase of a registered randomized clinical trial (DRKS00028974). MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty patients (32 females, 28 males; mean age 19.2 ± 6.9 years) were randomly allocated to receive one of the three CAD/CAM retainers. Immediately after bonding (T0–T1), intraoral scans were superimposed with the digital design to determine deviations at predefined interproximal contact points. Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests with Dunn’s post-hoc comparisons were applied (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsAll 60 patients completed the baseline assessment. Transfer deviations were lowest in the NiTi group (0.17 mm, IQR 0.16–0.21), followed by Ti5 (0.37 mm, IQR 0.32–0.41) and CoCr (0.35 mm, IQR 0.30–0.40). NiTi showed significantly higher transfer accuracy compared with Ti5 (p < 0.001) and CoCr (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between Ti5 and CoCr (p > 0.999). No adverse events occurred.
conclusionsLaser-cut NiTi CAD/CAM retainers demonstrated significantly higher immediate transfer precision than milled Ti5 and CoCr retainers. These findings represent the baseline phase of the ongoing randomized clinical trial; subsequent analyses will determine whether such accuracy differences translate into clinically relevant stability outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Accurate passive fit of CAD/CAM retainers is essential to prevent unwanted forces on teeth. Understanding material-dependent transfer deviations may improve digital bonding workflows and guide material selection in clinical orthodontics.
trial registrationDRKS00028974 (registered May 2022)
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.