Bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers: a randomized controlled trial. Part 1: stability, retainer survival, and patient satisfaction outcomes after 12 months

Forde, Katherine; Storey, Madeleine; Littlewood, Simon; Scott, Pamela Sharkey; Luther, Friedy; Kang, Jing

doi:10.1093/ejo/cjx058

Cited by 79 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent publication provides an answer to the question, but the results must be interpreted with caution; according to Forde et al. (2018), upper arch alignment remains equally stable with removable and fixed retainers …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Advantages and disadvantages of removable and fixed retainers can also determine the choice. Removable retainers are easy to clean, but compliance is difficult, even when the retainer only has to be worn at night . If not worn as prescribed, relapse may occur .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If not worn as prescribed, relapse may occur . Oral hygiene with fixed retainers needs to be perfect, while patients find them difficult to clean . The use of upper removable retainers is preferred in cases with a low risk of relapse, poor oral hygiene, and after extractions and expansion .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Removable retainers are easy to clean, but compliance is difficult, even when the retainer only has to be worn at night. 13,17,18 If not worn as prescribed, relapse may occur. 19 Oral hygiene with fixed retainers needs to be perfect, while patients find them difficult to clean.…”

Section: Studies Included In Quantitative Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 The is more effectively retained with fixed rather than with removable retainers. 13,23,24 The increase in Little's Irregularity Index with removable retainers is most likely to be the result of poor compliance.…”

Section: Cq1b Which Retainer Is Best For Retaining the Lower Arch?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention

Wouters

Lamberts

Kuijpers-Jagtman

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured AbstractObjectivesTo develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for orthodontic retention (OR).Materials and MethodsThe CPG was developed according to the AGREE II instrument and EBRO (Dutch methodology for evidence‐based guideline development). Reporting was done according the RIGHT statement. A Task Force developed clinical questions regarding OR. To answer these questions, a systematic literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was performed. Two independent researchers identified and selected studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB tool and rated quality of evidence using GRADE. The Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations after discussing the evidence. The concept CPG was sent for commentary to all relevant stakeholders.ResultOne systematic review—with 15 studies—met the inclusion criteria. In case of low evidence and lack of outcome measures, expert‐based considerations were developed. Over four meetings, the Task Force reached consensus on considerations and recommendations, after which the concept CPG was ready for the commentary phase. After processing the comments, the CPG was presented to the Dutch Association of Orthodontists, whereafter authorization followed.LimitationsThe paucity of evidence‐based studies concerning OR and the reporting of measurable patient outcomes.ConclusionThis CPG offers practitioner recommendations for best practice regarding OR, may reduce variation between practices and assists with patient aftercare. A carefully chosen retention procedure for individual patients, combined with clear information and communication between orthodontist, dentist and patient will contribute to long‐term maintenance of orthodontic treatment results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%