ReviewCureus2024
Robotic Archwire Bending in Orthodontics: A Review of the Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-Assisted Oral Examination: Challenges and Innovations.International dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Evaluation of Robotic and Manual Bending of Clasps for Removable Partial Dentures.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Dentistry: What the Evidence Supports and Which Outcomes Are Still Missing.Cureus · 2026Review
- Knowledge, attitude, awareness and perception of orthodontic residents, and orthodontists regarding robotics in the field of orthodontics: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Novel desktop robotic system for orthodontic archwire bending: an accuracy and efficiency comparison with manual bending.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Dynamic and Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery-A Possible Workflow for the Future?Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Review
- Attitudes of dentists and patients towards the introduction of artificial intelligence in dentistry.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malocclusion is a widespread oral health issue that adversely affects individuals' health and well-being. Currently, fixed orthodontics is considered the most efficient treatment for correcting malocclusion, with archwire bending playing a key role in orthodontic treatment. Traditionally, orthodontists manually performed archwire bending using various handheld pliers and other mechanical tools, requiring a significant amount of time, precision, and specialized training yet being unable to guarantee appliance accuracy. The process of shaping orthodontic wire is challenging due to its high stiffness and superelasticity, resulting in a time-consuming, laborious process that is prone to human errors. With advancements in orthodontics, traditional methods have taken a backseat, making way for innovative technologies that provide more accurate and personalized treatment options. The continuous efforts to enhance treatment efficiency, accuracy, efficacy, and patient experience have led to the integration of robotics into various orthodontic procedures. The use of robotics in archwire bending represents a breakthrough in orthodontics, offering unparalleled precision, consistency, and efficiency. This technology reduces treatment time and patient discomfort, overcoming the limitations of manual bending and enhancing orthodontic treatment overall. Hence, the present study aims to review the literature on robotic archwire bending in orthodontics, including their drawbacks and their impact on orthodontic treatment.
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.