ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Biomechanical Simulation of Orthodontic En-Bloc Retraction Comparing Compound Technique and Sliding Mechanics Using a HOSEA Robotic Device.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel desktop robotic system for orthodontic archwire bending: an accuracy and efficiency comparison with manual bending.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- The Interaction Between Orthodontics and Periodontal Tissue Remodeling :.Galen medical journal · 2025Review
- Review
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
En-bloc retraction is a common procedure in orthodontic therapy. The application of palatal root torque moments is required to control incisor inclination during retraction, yet studies comparing forces and moments with respect to different mechanics are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the forces and moments during orthodontic en-bloc retraction using a robotic biomechanical simulation system, comparing two distinct approaches: (I) compound technique [stainless steel (SS) combined with nickel-titanium (NiTi)] using industrially pretorqued retraction-torque-archwires (RTA) in combination with NiTi closed coil springs; (II) conventional sliding mechanics using SS archwires with manually applied anterior twist bends in combination with elastic chains. Two dimensions (0.017" × 0.025" and 0.018" × 0.025") and ten archwires per group were investigated using 0.022" slot self-ligating brackets. Kruskal-Wallis tests with a significance level of α = 0.05 were conducted. The biomechanical simulation showed that en-bloc retraction was characterized by a series of tipping and uprighting movements, differing significantly regarding the examined mechanics. Collateral forces and moments occurred in all groups. Notably, RTA exhibited fewer extrusive forces. The most bodily movement was achieved with the compound technique and the 0.018" × 0.025" RTA. Sliding mechanics exhibited maximum palatal root torque moments of more than 20 Nmm, exceeding recommended values.
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.