ArticlePolymers2022
Mechanical Characterization and Structural Analysis of Latex-Containing and Latex-Free Intermaxillary Orthodontic Elastics.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Mechanical Characterization of Intermaxillary Orthodontic Elastics: Energy-Based Metrics and Clinical Guidance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Influence of storage conditions on the mechanical properties of intermaxillary elastics.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Latex allergy and medical aspects of the use of latex products.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2026Review
- Force Degradation of Intermaxillary Latex Elastics: Comparative In Vitro and In Vivo Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Class II malocclusion is one of the most common dental anomalies and the use of intermaxillary elastomers is the standard method in its treatment. However, orthodontic elastics cannot exert continuous force over a period of time due to force degradation. Our goal was to mechanically characterize the different types of elastomers during static and cyclic loads, based on uniform methodology and examine the morphological changes after loading. Ten types of latex-containing and four latex-free intermaxillary elastics were examined from six different manufacturers. To determine the mechanical characteristics of the elastomers, tensile tests, cyclical tensile fatigue tests and 24 h relaxation tests were performed, and the elastics were also subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Raman spectroscopy. Regardless of the manufacturer, the latex-containing elastomers did not show significant differences in the percentage of elongation at break during the tensile test. Only one type of latex-containing elastomer did not tear during the 24 h cyclical fatigue test. Fatigue was confirmed by electron microscopy images, and the pulling force reduced significantly. During the force relaxation test, only one latex-free ligature was torn; the force degradation was between 7.8% and 20.3% for latex ligatures and between 29.6% and 40.1% for latex-free elastomers. The results showed that dynamic loading was more damaging to ligatures than static loading, latex-containing elastomers were more resistant than latex-free elastics, and which observation could have clinical consequences or a potential effect on patient outcome.
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.