ArticleGalen medical journal2024
Retention Force Comparison between Hawley and Vacuum-Formed Retainers in Orthodontic Treatment of Maxillary Arch: A Prospective, Non-randomized, Cohort Study over 6 Months : Comparing Retention Force of Hawley and Vacuum Formed Retainers.
Article in Galen medical journal, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the change in the retention force of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers for the maxillary arch over a 6-month period. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, non-randomized cohort study, 50 patients who were prescribed Hawley or Vacuum-formed retainers for their maxillary arch were consecutively enrolled. Retainers were fabricated to the standardized design on casts and were exclusively checked for every patient. The retention force of retainers was evaluated based on the force (in Grams) required to remove them from the mouth. Retention force was assessed on delivery day, 3 and 6 months after treatment via force gauge. The changes in retention force from one timepoint to another were calculated as a ratio (retention change index) and were then compared between two retainers. Results: Forty-five patients (23 Hawley and 22 vacuum-formed) completed the study. The retention force of Hawley retainers throughout three-time points was 453-249-189 (g), while that of vacuum-formed retainers was 857-621-513 (g). The decrease in retention force was statistically significant for both retainers (P-value 0.001). The retention force decrease in Hawley retainers was significantly more than Vacuum-formed retainers throughout 6 months (P-value 0.05). Conclusion: Both retainers experienced a loss in retention force over the 6-month period. However, vacuum-formed retainers maintained a higher retention force compared to Hawley retainers, making them more effective in retaining the teeth in their corrected positions.
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.