ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Three-dimensional stability during orthodontic retention: A comparative analysis of conventional, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent fixed retainers versus removable appliances.
Article 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
objectivesTo evaluate three-dimensional anterior tooth position changes during orthodontic retention and to compare the effectiveness of three distinct fixed retainer fabrication designs including robotically bent retainers alongside with removable retainers. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 113 patients (226 dental arches; mean retention period 1.3 ± 0.6 years). Combined fixed lingual plus removable retention (group 1, n = 148 arches) comprised CAD/CAM Memotain, conventional multistranded stainless-steel (Twistflex), and robotically bent retainers; group 2 (n = 78 arches) received removable retention only. Digital model superimposition using a three-dimensional tooth-specific coordinate system quantified rotational and translational tooth movements, Little's Irregularity Index (LII), transverse arch widths, and bonding failures.
resultsCombined fixed and removable retention showed higher stability than removable-only retention (55% vs. 33% stable arches). Removable retention increased the odds of moderate-to-severe instability (maxilla OR 4.37, 95% CI 1.74-10.98; mandible OR 14.35, 95% CI 3.24-63.56), whereas fixed lingual retention was protective (maxilla OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.58; mandible OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Instability mainly involved canine rotations and vertical translations. Robotically bent and CAD/CAM Memotain retainers showed the lowest movement magnitudes and variability, with minimal LII increases. Intercanine and intermolar widths remained stable across fixed retainers. Bonding failures (25%) strongly predicted severe instability.
conclusionsThree-dimensional tooth movements during retention mainly involve canine rotations and vertical translations. All fixed retainer designs (Twistflex, CAD/CAM-fabricated, and robotically bent) provided greater stability than removable-only retention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All fixed retainer designs require regular monitoring of bonding integrity; digitally fabricated and robotically bent retainers demonstrated marginally lower dimensional variability, which may be clinically relevant over longer observation periods.
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.