ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2020
An in vitro assessment of the influences of different wire materials and bracket systems when correcting dental crowding.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Load Deflection Characteristics of Orthodontic GummetalMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recently developed orthodontic wire alloy known as GUMMETAL® is claimed to deliver more physiological forces to correct dental mispositioning. However, its mechanical characteristics have not been fully characterized yet. This study aimed to determine and compare the elastic properties of different wire alloys, such as nickel-titanium (NiTi), stainless steel (SS), and GUMMETAL®, and assess their unloading forces when combined with either conventional or self-ligating brackets (CL and SL) when correcting dental crowding. All wires had a 0.016″ cross-section diameter. A three-point bending test was performed to assess the maximum deflection of each wire. Then, a subsequent analysis measured the unloading force for each wire/bracket system in a dental crowding clinical simulation device. The test was carried out in a universal testing machine with a cross-speed displacement of 0.5 mm/min. Data were recorded in different ranges and statistically evaluated using two-way analysis of variance. GUMMETAL® displayed higher unloading mean forces in SL brackets (2228.78 cN) than CL brackets (1967.38 cN) for the 1.6-3.0 deflection interval (p = 0.018). Within this interval, NiTi showed higher forces when used with CL brackets (2683.06 cN) than with SL brackets (1179.66 cN) (p < 0.0001). For the CL bracket systems, SS wires showed higher forces (2125.31 cN) in the 1.0-1.6 deflection interval than the other two wire alloys (NiTi, 1541.52 cN and GUMMETAL®, 852.65 cN) (p < 0.0001). SS wires also displayed lower forces with SL brackets (1844.01 cN) than in CL brackets (2125.31 cN) (p = 0.049). Thus, only GUMMETAL® revealed to be an optimal choice for SL brackets, whereas NiTi for CL brackets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33159594What 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.