ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation and Comparison of Force Degradation Levels Between Elastomeric Chains and Active Tiebacks With Elastic Modules During Individual Canine Retraction.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionCanine retraction is critical in orthodontic treatment, requiring precise force application. Elastomeric chains and active tiebacks are commonly used materials, but their efficacy in maintaining the force over time needs further evaluation. The study aimed to compare the rate of force degradation of elastomeric chains vs. active tiebacks during canine retraction over a duration of six weeks in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic therapy.
methodsThis study involved 20 patients, aged between 16 and 25 years. All the subjects were treated with the 0.018" McLaughlin-Bennett-Trevisi (MBT) prescription. Following the initial leveling and alignment, the canines were retracted on 0.016 x 0.022" stainless steel wire, using an elastomeric chain (ORMCO) on one side and an active tieback (ORMCO) on the contralateral side, each exerting a force of 150 g. Force values were measured using a tension gauge (TECLOCK; DT- 300) at intervals of 48 hours, two weeks, four weeks, and six weeks by a single observer and documented accordingly.
resultsThe elastomeric chain and active tieback sides demonstrated substantial force degradation over six weeks, with a marked reduction of force at given intervals. However, no statistically significant difference in force degradation rates was observed between the two methods (p > 0.05), indicating similar force degradation patterns.
conclusionThe elastomeric chain and active tieback methods demonstrated substantial force degradation over six weeks, with no statistically significant difference between the two. Thus, both materials can be effectively utilized for canine retraction in orthodontic treatment as they exhibit similar patterns of force degradation.
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.