ArticleDentistry journal2022
Bruxism's Implications on Fixed Orthodontic Retainer Adhesion.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wire Syndrome Associated with Multistrand Orthodontic Retainers: A Proposed Etiopathogenic Concept.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of the NOLA Dry Field device as an isolation system for bonding lower lingual retainers.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Development and in-vitro validation of an intraoral wearable biofeedback system for bruxism management.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Simulated Bruxism Forces and Surface Aging Treatments on Two Dental Nano-Biocomposites-A Radiographic and Tomographic Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFixed retainers assist in maintaining the outcomes of orthodontic treatment. Fixed retention may be affected by bruxism.
objectiveEvaluate two adhesives (an ormocer and a flowable composite) used for fixed orthodontic retention in simulated bruxism settings, compared to regular mastication, using a dual axis chewing simulator.
methodsEighty human teeth were used. Periodontal tissues were simulated and exposed to 120,000 mechanical cycles, corresponding to 6 months of clinical service. Each set of two teeth was supplied with a pre-shaped, fixed, multi-braided, stainless steel wire retainer, in 1.5 cm portions, to establish passive contact with the lingual surface of the teeth. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to evaluate the shear bond strength. A stereomicroscope was used to assess the micro-infiltration.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the mean value of micro-infiltration between adhesives in the mastication group but in the bruxism group. During testing, one composite sample (ARI score 1) was broken in the mastication group, while three ormocer samples (ARI score 2) and one composite sample (ARI score 1) were broken in the bruxism group.
conclusionsThe mean value for micro-infiltration in composite (0.31) was more than double that in ormocer (0.13).
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.