Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35744359›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparative Evaluation of Two Bracket Systems' Kinetic Friction: Conventional and Self-Ligating.

Aurel-Claudiu Vartolomei, Dan-Cosmin Serbanoiu, Dana-Valentina Ghiga, Marioara Moldovan, Stanca Cuc, Maria Cristina Figueiredo Pollmann, Mariana Pacurar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Effects of Acidic Environments on Dental Structures after Bracket Debonding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Aurel-Claudiu VartolomeiFaculty of Dental Medicine, GEP University of Medicine Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania.
Dan-Cosmin SerbanoiuFaculty of Dental Medicine, GEP University of Medicine Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania.
Dana-Valentina GhigaFaculty of Dental Medicine, GEP University of Medicine Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania.
Marioara MoldovanRaluca Ripan Chemistry Research Institute, Babes Bolyai University, 400294 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Stanca CucRaluca Ripan Chemistry Research Institute, Babes Bolyai University, 400294 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-9714-4809
Maria Cristina Figueiredo PollmannFaculty of Dental Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-393 Porto, Portugal.
Mariana PacurarFaculty of Dental Medicine, GEP University of Medicine Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-9812-695X
Universitatea de Medicină, Farmacie, Științe și Tehnologie „George Emil Palade” din Târgu Mureș · ROBabeș-Bolyai University · ROUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Friction is an intensely studied feature in orthodontics, as the sliding mechanics approach remains one of the most utilized techniques in current practice, and the question of whether self-ligating brackets produce less friction than conventional brackets still stands. The objective of this study was to compare a self-ligating system with different closing mechanisms and a conventional system with different ligating mechanisms regarding their frictional properties. Laboratory measurements were performed using an advanced materials testing machine generating tensile strength and load at maximum Load values, which were statistically analyzed and compared. These two parameters have been associated with the frictional resistance generated at the archwire-bracket slot interface. Statistically significant results were obtained when comparing the active self-ligating brackets with the passive self-ligating (tensile strength mean 1.953, SD 0.4231; load at maximum moad mean 6.000, SD 1.3000) and conventional brackets (tensile strength mean 1.953, SD 0.4231; load at maximum load mean 6.000, SD 1.3000), as well as when comparing the passive self-ligating brackets with the conventional brackets (tensile strength mean 1.708, SD 0.8628; load at maximum load mean 5.254, SD 2.645). The active self-ligating brackets tended to produce more friction when compared to the passive self-ligating brackets but were similar to conventional brackets with stainless steel ligatures.

Indexed as

conventional bracketsfrictionmaximum loadself-ligating bracketstensile strength

Identifiers

PMID35744359
PMCPMC9229450
OpenAlexW4283015882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.