Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39429425›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Assessment of Various Archwire Materials and Their Impact on Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes.

Bharathi V S, Ankur Kaul, Anurag Tiwari, Subhi Aliya, Apna Yadav, Trinanjali Bera, Preet Kaur Makkad

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07039071 (Evaluation of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Laceback), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07039071 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Laceback: A Split-Mouth Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorInternational Islamic University MalaysiaRan2026 to 2027Enrolled38ConditionsMalocclusionArmsLaceback
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bharathi V SOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, RajaRajeswari Dental College & Hospital, Bangalore, IND.
Ankur KaulOrthodontics, Auburn Dental Group, Auburn, USA.
Anurag TiwariOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, National Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) Dental College and Hospital, NIMS University, Jaipur, IND.
Subhi AliyaOrthodontics, Balaghat Dental Clinic, Balaghat, IND.
Apna YadavOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary (SGT) University, Gurugram, IND.
Trinanjali BeraDentistry, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, IND.
Preet Kaur MakkadDentistry, Gyan Dental Clinic, Bilaspur, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim Orthodontic treatment relies heavily on the mechanical properties and surface characteristics of archwire materials to achieve optimal outcomes. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the mechanical properties, including tensile strength, yield strength, and modulus of elasticity, as well as the surface characteristics, such as surface roughness and frictional properties, of different archwire materials. Methods Four types of archwire materials, stainless steel, nickel-titanium (NiTi), beta-titanium, and esthetic archwires, were subjected to mechanical testing and surface analysis, with 31 in each group. Tensile testing was conducted to determine the maximum tensile strength, yield strength, and elastic modulus of each material. Surface roughness analysis was performed using profilometry techniques, and frictional properties were evaluated using an orthodontic friction testing apparatus. Results Stainless steel exhibited the highest tensile strength (900 N), followed by beta-titanium (850 N), NiTi (800 N), and esthetic archwire (750 N). Stainless steel also demonstrated the highest yield strength (780 N), followed by beta-titanium (740 N), NiTi (710 N), and esthetic archwire (650 N). The modulus of elasticity was the highest for stainless steel (200 GPa), followed by beta-titanium (170 GPa), NiTi (150 GPa), and esthetic archwires (120 GPa). Surface roughness was lowest in stainless steel archwires (mean Ra value of 0.25 µm), leading to reduced frictional resistance, whereas esthetic archwires exhibited the highest surface roughness (mean Ra value of 0.40 µm) and frictional forces. Significant differences in the mechanical properties and surface characteristics were observed among the materials (p < 0.05). Conclusions The choice of archwire material significantly influences orthodontic treatment outcomes by affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of tooth movement. Stainless steel and beta-titanium wires are ideal for high-stress applications, providing the robust mechanical strength necessary for complex movements. In contrast, NiTi wires, with their superelasticity, offer consistent and gentle forces, enhancing patient comfort and accelerating the alignment phase. Esthetic archwires, while visually appealing, often compromise mechanical performance, potentially prolonging treatment duration.

Indexed as

archwire materialsfrictional propertiesmechanical propertiesmodulus of elasticityorthodonticssurface characteristicssurface roughnesstensile strengthyield strength

Identifiers

PMID39429425
PMCPMC11488987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.