ArticleScientific reports2026
Slot fidelity and ligation-dependent tribology in personalized brackets made by casting versus selective laser melting: an in vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable chairside adoption of digital orthodontics depends on micrometre-scale slot fidelity and stable bracket-wire tribology. A single computer-aided design for a personalized second-premolar bracket was manufactured by lost-wax casting and by selective laser melting (SLM) (n = 36 per method). Slot height and inter-wall angle were measured on both the support-facing and non-support surfaces. Static and dynamic friction were evaluated using stainless-steel rectangular wires ligated either with tightly twisted stainless-steel ties or with elastomeric modules. Mean slot height was 480.88 ± 73.90 µm for casting and 421.47 ± 32.03 µm for SLM, against a nominal 480 µm. Overall height error did not differ between methods (P = 0.673), whereas angle er-ror was greater for SLM (17.76 ± 11.29°) than for casting (9.56 ± 8.88°, P < 0.001). The support-facing wall consistently showed reduced accuracy: in casting, height error in-creased on the support side (P = 0.001); in SLM, both height and angle errors increased on the support side (both P < 0.001). Across conditions, static friction exceeded dynamic friction (all P < 0.001). With steel ligation, friction was higher for casting than SLM (median static 6.00 N vs 4.35 N, P = 0.007; median dynamic 5.03 N vs 3.83 N, P = 0.011). With elastomeric ligation, the ranking reversed, with higher friction for SLM (median static 2.95 N vs 2.05 N, P < 0.001; median dynamic 2.54 N vs 2.03 N, P = 0.003). In this standardized local in vitro model, findings suggest a surface-dependent reduction in accuracy at the support-facing wall and a fabrication-by-ligation interaction that may alter the frictional ranking between steel and elastomeric ligations. Cast brackets showed more consistent full-wire seating, whereas SLM brackets may benefit from calibrated design offsets and targeted finishing to limit undersized or tapered slots; validation beyond this setup is needed.
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.