ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Development and Evaluation of a New Orthodontic Ligature: Frictional Force Analysis.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the friction of different ligature modes used in orthodontics, and to propose a new ligature model for conventional brackets ("H low-friction orthodontic ligature). MATERIALS AND
methodsSamples were randomly divided into seven experimental groups: (1) resin H ligature (H3D), designed by the authors of this study and produced in a 3D printer, with conventional bracket; (2) metal H ligature (HFM), with conventional bracket; (3) passive self-ligating bracket (SLP); (4) "8" low-friction unconventional elastic (LT8), with conventional bracket; (5) loose conventional metal ligature (MLS), with conventional bracket; (6) conventional metal ligature fully tightened (MLT), with conventional bracket; (7) conventional elastic ligature (CEL), with conventional bracket-control. All samples were subjected to mechanical static friction testing using the EMIC DL 2000 universal testing machine. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: To assess the normality requirement, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used, which showed a non-normal distribution for the means of the groups (
resultsThe results obtained showed lower friction values for HFM (0.002 kgf), SLP (0.003 kgf), and LT8 (0.004 kgf)-these did not differ statistically from each other. These were followed by H3D (0.020 kgf), MLS (0.049 kgf), CEL (0.12 kgf), and, finally, MLT (0.21 kgf).
conclusionThe lowest friction value was found for the metal H ligature, similar to the self-ligating bracket and the "8" low-friction unconventional elastic. The resin H ligature presented intermediate friction values and the highest friction force was found for the MLT group.
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.