ArticleScientific reports2021
Mechanical properties of CAD/CAM-fabricated in comparison to conventionally fabricated functional regulator 3 appliances.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of six different CAD/CAM retainers vs. the stainless steel twistflex retainer: an in vitro investigation of survival rate and stability.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional evaluation using CBCT of the mandibular asymmetry and the compensation mechanism in a growing patient: A case report.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
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
Manufacturing of Fränkel's functional regulator 3 (FR3) is complicated and requires extensive knowledge from the dental technician. To determine whether FR3s produced by CAD/CAM techniques (CAD-FR3) meet similar mechanical properties like conventional FR3s (Con-FR3), for each of 10 patient cases, three CAD-FR3 designs (palatal connector cross-section 3 × 3 mm, 4 × 1 mm or 5 × 2 mm) and one Con-FR3 were subjected to cyclic loading and subsequent fracture testing in a universal testing device. Transversal load capacity (F
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.