ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Relapse and Failure Rates Between CAD/CAM and Conventional Fixed Retainers
The aim of this study was to compare the differences in relapse and failure rates in patients treated with fixed retainers (FRs) using Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing technology, lab-based technique, and chairside method.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Effects of Different Storage Conditions on Removable Retainers#851113
- Active Release Versus Positional Release Technique#873949
- Comparison of Efficiency and Effectiveness of Two Types of Bonded Orthodontic Retainers: an RCT.#1126980
- Axi-cel Retreatment in Relapsed/Refractory LBCL#1114142
- Combined Static and Dynamic Orthotic Treatment of the PIP Joint#888244
Record · ID 1046530
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive