Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer vs Positioner: Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch)
- Population
- People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
- Intervention
- Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer
- Comparison
- Positioner
- Outcome
- Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch)
Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer led to lower stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with positioner; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer vs Positioner Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment · 2 years, lower arch Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer led to lower stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with positioner; GRADE not reported. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces (2023) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -1.00 [-1.65, -0.35] | 1 study · 46 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes | April 2022 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer vs Upper clear plastic retainer + lower interproximal reduction (adjunctive), no lower retainer · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.