Effect of bonded and removable retainers on occlusal settling after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effectiveness of bonded and removable retainers (the Hawley and Essix retainers) in terms of improving occlusal settling (occlusal contact points/areas) after orthodontic treatment. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Dental & Oral Sciences Source (DOSS), as well as SIGLE, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials along with cohort studies. Studies that reported occlusal contacts/areas during retention with fixed bonded and removable retainers were included. To assess the quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was utilized, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of cohort studies.We included 6 articles in our systematic review after scrutinizing 219 articles and eliminating the illegible ones based on duplication, titles, abstracts, and objectives. Bonded retainers (BRs) allowed faster and better posterior occlusal settling as compared to the Hawley retainer (HR). However, HR showed good occlusal settling in the anterior dental arch. The Essix retainer (ER) showed a decrease in occlusal contact during the retention phase. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between BRs and removable retainers. In conclusion, HR allowed better overall occlusal settling as compared to other retainers. However, BRs allowed faster settling in the posterior tooth region. The Essix retainer showed poor settling of occlusion. Overall, there is an insufficient number of high-quality RCTs to provide additional evidence, and further high-quality RCTs are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".