ArticleJournal of dental sciences2023
Assessment of mechanical characteristics of polyetheretherketone as orthodontic fixed lingual retainers.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing resin bonding to saliva-contaminated polyetheretherketone: comparative efficacy of cleaning methods.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed resin for orthodontic fixed lingual retainers: AnJournal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Failed Orthodontic PEEK Retainer: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis and a Possible Failure Mechanism in a Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Review
- A Novel 3-Dimensional Printed Nanoceramic Hybrid Resin Fixed Lingual Retainer: Characterization and Mechanical Tests.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is known for its strength, flexibility, biocompatibility, and potential as a replacement for metals in dental appliances; however, uncertainty remains about the mechanical characteristics and dimensions of PEEK-made orthodontic fixed lingual retainers (FLRs). This study aimed to determine the optimal shape of PEEK-made orthodontic FLRs using the finite element method (FEM) and the three-point bending test (TPBT). Materials and methods: Seventy-five three-dimensional PEEK rod-shaped models were created, which included five thicknesses (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2 mm), five widths (0.7, 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5 mm), and three cross-sectional shapes (rectangular, oval, and hemielliptical). A 0.9-mm (0.036-inch) stainless steel wire (SSW) was used as a control and the FEM was used to determine six optimal dimensions among the PEEK models. The selected models were then fabricated and subjected, along with the SSW, to the experimental TPBT to assess their mechanical responses against lingual and biting pressures. Results: The FEM analysis revealed that Von Mises stresses on the PEEK models decreased with an increase in width and thickness. Six optimal shapes of PEEK models were chosen based on acceptable lingual and biting stresses as well as patient comfort compared to the SSW. Furthermore, PEEK models showed significantly lower deformation during the 3.1-mm deflection test than did the SSW, while no notable differences were observed among different sizes of PEEK models. The hemielliptical PEEK model with a thickness of 1.0 mm and width of 1.5 mm was found to be mechanically robust enough to withstand lingual forces, while none of the PEEK models, including the SSW, were able to resist biting forces. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this
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.