↓ Skip to main content

Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Odontology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Performance of clear vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers depending on retention protocol: a systematic review
Published in
Odontology, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10266-016-0254-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleftherios G. Kaklamanos, Maria Kourakou, Dimitrios Kloukos, Ioannis Doulis, Smaragda Kavvadia

Abstract

We aimed at comparing the performance of vacuum-formed thermoplastic retainers (VFR) worn either full-time or part-time, in maintaining orthodontic treatment results in terms of tooth alignment, arch form and occlusion. We reviewed randomized and prospective controlled clinical trials comparing VFR wearing protocols and searched databases, without restrictions, for published and unpublished literature. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall level of certainty in the evidence following ADA methodology. 184 studies were initially identified and reduced to the 3 randomized controlled trials included in the systematic review by means of specific criteria. One study followed patients 1 year into retention, and the other two for 6 months. Little's Irregularity Index, intermolar and intercanine width, arch length, overjet and PAR score did not differ significantly between the patients wearing their retainers part time or full time. We observed a slight increase in the overbite in the part-time group in only one trial. With a moderate level of certainty, we found that during the observation period, full-time VFR wear is not superior to part-time, bearing in mind the potential implications for health burden, retainer longevity and cost-effectiveness, as well as patient satisfaction and compliance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 23 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,437,553
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Odontology
#89
of 202 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,525
of 341,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Odontology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them