Cited by 50Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsOral microbiology and periodontitis researchOral and gingival health research

Long-term influence of fixed lingual retainers on the development of gingival recession: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study

Open access
Juloski, Jovana, Glisic, Branislav, Vandevska-Radunovic, Vaska·2017·The Angle Orthodontist

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the long-term influence of fixed lingual retainers on the development of mandibular gingival recession and to compare the prevalence with untreated individuals. Materials and Methods: The material consisted of 144 subjects: 96 orthodontically treated patients followed for 5 years after therapy and 48 untreated age-matched subjects. The treated patients were divided in two groups: one receiving a fixed mandibular retainer (n = 48) and one receiving no form of retention in the mandible (n = 48). The presence or absence of gingival recession and calculus accumulation were scored before treatment (T0), after debonding (T1), and 5 years after debonding (T5) for each tooth in the mandibular intercanine region using plaster models and intraoral photographs. The chi-square test, one-way ANOVA, and Cochran's Q test were used to evaluate inter- and intragroup differences. Results: The prevalence of patients with recession increased gradually and significantly throughout the observation periods in all groups, but the intergroup differences at T5 were not significant. Significantly more calculus accumulation was observed at T5 in the retainer group compared with the group without retainers. Conclusions: Long-term presence of fixed lingual retainers does not seem to increase the development of mandibular gingival recession, but does increase calculus accumulation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2319/012217-58.1

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More pronounced calculus formation has been shown in patients with fixed retainers when compared to removable or no retainers.

    “Furthermore, more pronounced calculus formation has been shown in patients with fixed retainers when compared to removable, or no retainers [18,23,24], but the evidence is described as low [21].”

    From Periodontal status in long-term orthodontic retention patients up to 10 years after treatment – a cross-sectional study (2021) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Discussion (p. 4) reports significantly more calculus in patients with fixed lingual retainers than in patients with no retention appliance. The paper does not establish the claimed comparison with removable retainers; its Discussion (p. 4) describes evidence on differences between retainer regimens as uncertain. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reports on the effect of extraction on gingival recession are unanimous and show no correlation.

    “Reports on the effect of extraction on, particularly, GR are unanimous and show no correlation [24,31].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]1. Wennstrom JL ZG, Pini Prato GP. Mucogingival therapyperiodontal plastic surgery. In: Lindhe J LN, Karring T, eds. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry . Vol 2. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Munksgaard; 2008:958.
  2. [10]10. retainers. Am J Orthod.Dentofacial.Orthop . 1997;112:607616.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Juloski, J., Glisic, B., & Vandevska-Radunovic, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Belgrade (RS)
  • Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
  • Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Venue
The Angle Orthodontist
Published
2017-09
Volume
87
Issue
5
Pages
658-664
ISSN
  • 0003-3219 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7103
OpenAlex
W2727385620
Cited by
50
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Angle Orthodontist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SMILE – School of dental Medicine dIgitaL archivE (University of Belgrade, School of Dental Medicine) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Oral and gingival health research
Keywords
gingival recession, orthodontic retention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Dental Calculus, Dental Plaque, Dental Plaque Index, Female, Gingival Recession, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Mandible, Oral Hygiene Index, Orthodontics, Corrective, Periodontal Index, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Prevalence, Orthodontic Appliance Design, Orthodontic Retainers, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review