ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Surface Precision in Orthodontics: A Comprehensive Analysis of Interproximal Reduction Methods Using Atomic Force Microscopy.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interproximal reduction (IPR) is a common orthodontic procedure aimed at creating space between teeth for proper alignment. Objective: The objective of this study is to comprehensively evaluate and compare the impact of three distinct IPR methods on the surface roughness of mandibular teeth using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Methods: A total of 128 extracted human mandibular teeth were allocated evenly into three groups: Group A (manual IPR), Group B (rotary-disc IPR), and Group C (laser-assisted IPR). Each group underwent specific IPR procedures, and the surface roughness was evaluated using AFM. The study employed rigorous randomization and precise calibration of instruments. Results: The findings indicate that Group A (manual IPR) exhibited the smoothest surfaces, while Group C (laser-assisted IPR) demonstrated the highest surface roughness. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences among the groups ( Conclusion: The choice of IPR method significantly influences the surface roughness of mandibular teeth. Manual IPR appears to yield the smoothest surfaces, while laser-assisted IPR may result in increased roughness. These findings have implications for clinical decision-making in orthodontic practices.
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.