ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
The corrosion products of proprietary and generic orthodontic fixed lingual retainers and their in-vitro cytotoxicity.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of the performance of orthodontic retainers using different surface protocols: an in vitro study.Lasers in medical science · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the corrosion products and cytotoxicity of generic and proprietary fixed lingual retainers (FLRs). MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven FLRs were investigated. Wires were submersed in solution for 34 days, at 37°C, under constant agitation. A proportion of this solution was analyzed to determine the concentration of metallic ions leaching off the wires. The remainder was diluted to 5%, 10% and 20% followed by exposure to human gingival fibroblasts and analysis of cytotoxicity of the wires.
resultsThree wires (Dentaflex, Universal, and AZDent) released excessive concentrations of lead, two wires (MeshMark and Orthoflex) released excessive concentrations of nickel, and one wire (Universal) released excessive concentrations of molybdenum into solution. No statistically significant difference was found between the wires analyzed (P = .24). Slight cytotoxicity was noted in only one wire (Dentaflex) at a 20% dilution of eluent. This was also the wire which released the highest concentration of lead into solution. All other wires, at all concentrations, were deemed noncytotoxic, but five samples overall were deemed statistically significant (P < .0024). A statistically significant difference existed between wires (P = .013) and concentrations analyzed (P < .001).
conclusionsMetals were released in differing quantities from all wires, with some elemental concentrations measuring more than that deemed acceptable in drinking water in Australia. A trend toward increased cell viability across samples was found with only one demonstrating cytotoxicity. There was no indication that generic FLRs were more or less biocompatible than their proprietary counterparts.
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.