Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30673806›Full record

ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2019

Scanning electron microscopy analysis of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments.

Edoardo Mantovani, Enrico Castroflorio, Gabriele Rossini, Francesco Garino, Giovanni Cugliari, Andrea Deregibus, Tommaso Castroflorio

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Color changes of nanocomposites used for clear aligner attachments: an in vitro study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Edoardo MantovaniDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy. edoardo.mantovani@icloud.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4331-5331
Enrico CastroflorioDepartment of Mammalian Genetics Unit, Harwell Campus, Oxfordshire, UK.
Gabriele RossiniDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Francesco Garino, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni CugliariDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Andrea DeregibusDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Tommaso CastroflorioDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy.
University of Turin · ITMary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell · GBPolitecnico di Torino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aims of the study were (1) to evaluate the fitting of three different aligners (Invisalign [Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA], CA Clear Aligner [Scheu-Dental, Iserlohn, Germany] and F22 [Sweden&Martina, Due Carrare, Italy]) on anchorage attachments using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and (2) to analyze the influence of 2 different types of resin used to build attachments on aligner fitting.

methodsUsing STL files of a patient, six resin casts were obtained and rectangular attachments were bonded on them. Conventional bulk-fill resin was used to build upper attachments while a flowable resin was used to build the lower ones. Passive aligners were adapted on each cast and then sectioned buccolingually. Microphotographs of the obtained sections were performed using a SEM and then micrometric measurements of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments were recorded.

resultsAnalyzing the overall fitting of upper arch aligners, Invisalign provided a significantly better fitting with respect to F22 (P = 0.009); differences were not significant when comparing Invisalign with CA Clear Aligner, and CA Clear Aligner with F22. Analyzing the overall fitting of lower arch aligners, F22 provided a significantly better fitting with respect to CA Clear Aligner (P = 0.008) and Invisalign (P = 0.011). The analysis showed a significantly better fitting on upper attachments, built using conventional bulk-fill resin (P = 0.034).

conclusionsInvisalign, CA Clear Aligner and F22 have comparable performance in terms of fitting on anchorage attachments. Conventional bulk-fill resin provides the best fitting on anchorage attachments.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Anchorage ProceduresOrthodontic Appliances, RemovableDental Casting TechniqueHumansMalocclusion, Angle Class IMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningResins, SyntheticTooth Movement TechniquesResins, SyntheticAnchor teethAuxiliariesComposite resinOrthodontic tooth movementOrthodontic treatment

Identifiers

PMID30673806
OpenAlexW2913218903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.