ArticleBrazilian dental journal
Does the initial surface roughness of different CuNiTi wires affect the frictional resistance?
Article in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study aimed to assess and correlate initial surface roughness and frictional resistance of rectangular CuNiTi wires inserted in different self-ligating brackets. The sample consisted of 40 bracket-wire sets (rectangular CuNiTi wires of 0.017" x 0.025" and passive self-ligating brackets) divided into four groups (n=10): metallic self-ligating bracket and metallic CuNiTi wire (G1); metallic self-ligating bracket and rhodium-coated CuNiTi wire (G2); esthetic self-ligating bracket and metallic wire (G3); esthetic self-ligating bracket and rhodium-coated CuNiTi wire (G4). The initial surface roughness of the wires was examined with a Surfcorder roughness meter, model SE1700. Later, frictional resistance was assessed in an Instron 4411 universal testing machine at a speed of 5 mm/min, in an aqueous medium at 35°C. Microscopic analyses of surface morphology were performed with scanning electron microscopy, using an LEO 1430, with magnifications of 1000X. Generalized linear models were applied, considering the 2 x 2 factorial (bracket type x wire type), at a 5% significance level. Regardless of bracket type, the groups with esthetic wires presented higher initial surface roughness than the groups with metallic wires (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the different bracket-wire sets for frictional resistance and no significant correlation between frictional resistance and initial surface roughness in the environment studied. It is concluded that esthetic wires presented higher initial surface roughness but did not interfere with the frictional resistance between brackets and wires.
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.