Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41840261›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Thermoformed and 3D-Printed Retainers in Young Adults: Evaluation of Post-treatment Stability and Patient Satisfaction.

Hui Shan Boo, Norhidayah Nor Zahidah Mohd Tahir, Aufa Dahlia Bahar, Simon J Littlewood, Saritha Sivarajan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT05968625 (Post-Treatment Stability, Changes in Mechanical Properties and Patients' OHRQoL Of Direct 3D-Printed Retainers Versus Thermoformed Retainers), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05968625 naunknown statusnot on this map

Post-Treatment Stability, Changes in Mechanical Properties and Patients' OHRQoL Of Direct 3D-Printed Retainers Versus Thermoformed Retainers: An Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MalayaRan2023 to 2024Enrolled30ConditionsOrthodontic RetentionArmsThermoformed retainers, 3D-printed retainers
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hui Shan BooDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia. boohuishan@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9326-6189
Norhidayah Nor Zahidah Mohd TahirDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia. norhidayahmt@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8668-3919
Aufa Dahlia BaharDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5744-580X
Simon J LittlewoodDepartment of Orthodontics, St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, UK. simonjlittlewood@aol.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9092-6688
Saritha SivarajanDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Malaya, Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia. saritha@um.edu.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2623-4916

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo compare post-treatment stability and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in young adults wearing thermoformed retainers (TFR) versus direct 3D-printed retainers (3DPR) over a six-month part-time retention period. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis single-centre, two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial allocated 30 debonded orthodontic patients (≥ 18 years) to either TFR (Erkodur PETG, 1.0 mm) or 3DPR (NextDent Ortho Flex, 0.75 mm) in a 1:1 ratio. All retainers were worn part-time (8-12 h/day). Digital intraoral scans were obtained at baseline (T0) and six months (T2) using Trios 3, and post-treatment stability was assessed digitally using Little's Irregularity Index, intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, overjet, and overbite. OHRQoL was evaluated at both time points using the OHIP-14(M) questionnaire. Non-parametric tests were applied following the Shapiro-Wilk assessment, and analyses were conducted using an intention-to-treat approach.

resultsOne dropout in the 3DPR group at T2. At T2, no significant between-group differences were found in Little's Irregularity Index, intercanine width, intermolar width, arch length, or overjet (p > 0.05). Overbite values were statistically higher in the TFR group at T2 (p < 0.05); however, the difference was not clinically significant. Changes in post-treatment stability from T0 to T2 (ΔT2-T0) did not differ significantly between groups (p > 0.05). Total OHIP-14(M) scores improved significantly from T0 to T2 in both groups (TFR p = 0.016; 3DPR p = 0.013), with no significant between-group differences at either time point (p > 0.05). A small but significant difference was observed in the psychological disability domain at T2, with slightly higher scores in the 3DPR group (p = 0.020). No harm was observed.

conclusionsTFR and 3DPR demonstrated comparable post-treatment stability and similar improvements in OHRQoL after six months of part-time wear. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT05968625). PROTOCOL: The protocol was published before trial commencement.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Appliance DesignOrthodontic RetainersPatient SatisfactionPrinting, Three-DimensionalAdolescentFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeYoung Adult3D-printed retainersOHRQoLPost-treatment stabilityRetentionThermoformed retainers

Identifiers

PMID41840261
PMCPMC12992356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.