ArticleCureus2026
Retention vs. Stability: A Comparative Study of Thermoplastic Materials for Oral Appliance Therapy.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim Retention and stability are important mechanical factors influencing the effectiveness of oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Retention refers to the force required to maintain the appliance in place, whereas stability reflects the ability to preserve retentive force during repeated use. Although thermoplastic materials are widely used for oral appliances, differences in their initial retention and long-term stability remain unclear. This study aimed to compare retentive force and stability over repeated removal cycles between two thermoplastic materials, Duran and New Duran, using standardized maxillary and mandibular models. We hypothesized that Duran would exhibit higher initial retentive force, whereas New Duran would demonstrate greater stability over repeated use. Methods Two types of thermoplastic materials were evaluated using standardized dental models. Retentive force was measured during 100 consecutive removal cycles. Each experiment was repeated three times. A linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze the effects of material type, removal cycle, and their interaction. Initial retentive force was compared using Welch's t-test. Results In the maxillary model, Duran showed higher initial retentive force than New Duran, although the difference was not statistically significant (1.457 ± 0.117 N vs. 1.040 ± 0.251 N, p = 0.085). In contrast, in the mandibular model, Duran demonstrated significantly higher initial retention (1.683 ± 0.132 N vs. 0.857 ± 0.107 N, p = 0.0013). Over repeated removal cycles, Duran exhibited a gradual decrease in retention, whereas New Duran showed relatively stable retentive force. A significant interaction between material type and removal cycle was observed, indicating different degradation patterns between materials. Conclusions Duran provides a higher initial retentive force, particularly in the mandibular model, whereas New Duran demonstrates superior stability over repeated use. These findings suggest that material selection should be tailored according to anatomical conditions and clinical priorities.
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.