Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37605187›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2023

A comparative study of CAD/CAM fabricated polyether ether ketone and fiber-glass reinforcement composites versus metal lingual retainers under vertical load (an in vitro study).

Abdullah A Alabbadi, Essam M Abdalla, Seham A Hanafy, Tarek N Yousry

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Abdullah A AlabbadiDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champolion street, P. O. Box: 21521, Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt. Abdullah.Ahmed.dent@alexu.edu.eg.
Essam M AbdallaDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champolion street, P. O. Box: 21521, Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt.
Seham A HanafyDepartment of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Tarek N YousryDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Champolion street, P. O. Box: 21521, Azarita, Alexandria, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRetainer is a necessary procedure when orthodontic treatment complete to avoid relapse due to periodontal fiber elasticity and to allow for alveolar bone regeneration. Compare the influence of vertical force on the failure of three fixed retainers: CAD/CAM polyether ether ketone (PEEK), CAD/CAM fiber glass reinforced composites (FRCs), and lingual retainer wire "Bond-A-Braid™". MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred and eight maxillary first premolars teeth were randomly allocated to three groups: Group A (CAD/CAM PEEK), Group B (CAD/CAM FRC), and Group C (lingual retainer wire " Bond-A-Braid™"). These retainers were bonded using Assure Plus Bonding Resin and GO TO Paste. For each specimen, a loading cycling and thermocycling machine was used. The failure debonding forces were measured on the interproximal segments using a universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was calculated after identifying types of failure with a stereomicroscope at (X 20) magnification.

resultsGroup B and group C showed the highest failure bonding forces, with a mean of 209.67 ± 16.15 and 86.81 ± 4.59 N, respectively. However, Group A had a statistically significant lower bond failure force, with a mean value of 45.73 ± 4.48 N. At baseline, there was a statistically significant difference in connector retainer displacement between the three studied groups (p < .001). The ARI score was not statistically significant (p < .001) between the three study groups; for groups A and B, the ARI was predominantly score 3, and group C showed a mixed score of 2 and 3. The failure mode of retainers was investigated using an optical stereomicroscope. In group B, there was a cohesive breakdown in the retainer, and groups A and C exhibited failures primarily in the adhesive at the retainer interface.

conclusionAll groups differed significantly, with group A having the lowest debonding force and group B having the highest. Furthermore, there was not a substantial variation in ARI, but there was a significant difference in connector retainer displacement and the types of failure amongst the three groups.

Indexed as

BenzophenonesResearch DesignEthersHumansKetonesPolymersBenzophenonesEthersKetonespolyetheretherketonePolymersCAD\CAMDigital orthodonticsFixed retainerFRCPEEK

Identifiers

PMID37605187
PMCPMC10441729

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.