ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics
Attractiveness of different esthetic orthodontic wires.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Various Archwire Materials and Their Impact on Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes.Cureus · 2024Article
- The Relationship between Personality Profiles and the Esthetic Perception of Orthodontic Appliances.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Effect of oral environment on contemporary orthodontic materials and its clinical implications.Journal of orthodontic science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the attractiveness of different types of esthetic orthodontic wires by laypeople and dentists.
methodsFive different types of orthodontic wires were evaluated: three esthetic wires (Teflon-coated, epoxy resin-coated and rhodium-coated wires), and two metallic wires (stainless steel and NiTi), as control. Monocrystalline ceramic brackets were installed in the maxillary arch of a patient presenting good dental alignment. The five evaluated wires were attached to the orthodontic appliance with an esthetic silicone elastic and photographed. The photographs were evaluated by 163 individuals, 110 dentists and 53 laypeople. The data were statistically evaluated by two-way ANOVA and one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey tests.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference in the attractiveness among the wires evaluated; the most esthetic was the rhodium-coated wire, followed by the epoxy resin-coated wire and, finally, the Teflon-coated wire, with no significant difference from the stainless steel and NiTi control archwires. There was no significant difference between the groups of evaluators.
conclusionThe most attractive was the rhodium-coated wire, followed by the epoxy resin-coated wire and, finally, the least attractive wire was the Teflon-coated wire, without statistically significant difference to the stainless steel and NiTi wires, used as control.
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.