ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2018
Comparison of deflection forces of esthetic archwires combined with ceramic brackets.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral health-related quality of life among adults undergoing orthodontic procedure with ceramic braces versus aligners.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- An in vitro assessment of the influences of different wire materials and bracket systems when correcting dental crowding.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2020Article
- Functional Coatings for Orthodontic Archwires-A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Evaluation of Nanomechanical Properties, Surface Roughness, and Color Stability of Esthetic Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Archwires.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
- Does the initial surface roughness of different CuNiTi wires affect the frictional resistance?Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coated archwires and ceramic brackets have been developed to improve facial esthetics during orthodontic treatment. However, their mechanical behavior has been shown to be different from metallic archwires and brackets. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the deflection forces in coated nickel-titanium (NiTi) and esthetic archwires combined with ceramic brackets. Material and Methods Non-coated NiTi (NC), rhodium coated NiTi (RC), teflon coated NiTi (TC), epoxy coated NiTi (EC), fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and the three different conventional brackets metal-insert polycrystalline ceramic (MI-PC), polycrystalline ceramic (PC) and monocrystalline ceramic (MC) were used. The specimens were set up on a clinical simulation device and evaluated in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron). An acrylic device, representative of the right maxillary central incisor was buccolingually activated and the unloading forces generated were recorded at 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 mm. The speed of the testing machine was 2 mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to compare the different archwires and brackets. Results The brackets presented the following decreasing force ranking: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and polycrystalline metal-insert. The decreasing force ranking of the archwires was: rhodium coated NiTi (RC), non-coated NiTi (NC), teflon coated NiTi (TC), epoxy coated NiTi (EC) and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). At 3 mm of unloading the FRP archwire had a plastic deformation and produced an extremely low force in 2; 1 and 0.5 mm of unloading. Conclusion Combinations of the evaluated archwires and brackets will produce a force ranking proportional to the combination of their individual force rankings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.