ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2026
Comparison of the biomechanical properties of CAD/CAM individualized lingual retainers: An
Article in Korean journal of orthodontics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the biomechanical properties of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) retainers made of titanium and nickel-titanium (NiTi). Methods: Four retainer types were tested: (1) twisted steel, (2) NiTi, (3) cut titanium, and (4) printed titanium. Longitudinal wires were manufactured (2-4) and subjected to a three-point bending test (3PBT). In a biomechanical bending test (BMT), retainers were designed from patient scans and applied to models in an Orthodontic Measurement and Simulation System, with the maxillary central incisor and mandibular central incisor loaded with deflections of ±0.2 mm and rotation of ±1°. Results: The 3PBT showed that NiTi wires exhibited a characteristic hysteresis loop, whereas the cut and printed titanium wires had different flow and yield strengths. The BMT forces during intrusive and extrusive movements were measured, and the findings revealed that in the maxilla, all CAD/CAM materials showed significant differences from the twisted steel, with NiTi differing from the cut and printed titanium. In the mandible, the forces were generally higher, with significant differences observed at 0.1-mm extrusion and 0.2-mm deflection. In addition, significant differences were observed in the mesial and distal deflections, particularly in the mandible, where the cut titanium generated the lowest forces. Twisted steel exhibited the lowest torque, whereas cut titanium exhibited the highest torque. Conclusions: CAD/CAM retainers differ significantly from conventional twisted steel retainers, with notable differences between NiTi and titanium retainers, especially in the maxilla. However, these differences may be negligible in the mandible due to the shorter interdental distance.
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.