SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Effects of different orthodontic retainers on dental arch stability and periodontal health: a systematic review with pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOrthodontic retainers play a crucial role in maintaining dental arch stability and periodontal health; however, the relative advantages of different retainer types remain inconsistent. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different retainers by integrating both direct and indirect evidence.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of retainers were included. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed to compare fixed retainers and removable retainers. A Bayesian framework-based network meta-analysis (NMA) was further conducted to explore comparative patterns among conventional fixed retainers (FRs), computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing fixed retainers (CAD/CAM FRs), vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs), and Hawley retainers (HRs).
resultsA total of 18 studies (n = 1,471) were included. Pairwise meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the two types of retainers in periodontal indices, including gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI), as well as in most stability outcomes. However, removable retainers were associated with greater increases in arch length (AL), while the observed reduction in intercanine distance (ICD) was statistically borderline and clinically small. The NMA similarly revealed no statistically significant differences. Ranking probabilities suggested exploratory, outcome-specific patterns: FRs ranked highest for AL, CAD/CAM FRs for Little's irregularity index (LII), HRs for ICD, and VFRs for interpremolar distance (IPD); however, these rankings should be interpreted cautiously because most network estimates were imprecise and statistically non-significant.
conclusionOverall, the available evidence did not demonstrate definitive superiority of any retainer type. Ranking results suggested possible outcome-specific patterns, but these findings remain exploratory because of sparse networks, imprecise estimates, and limited certainty of evidence. Further well-designed randomized trials are needed.
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.