Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41877680›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2026

Comparison of the biomechanical properties of CAD/CAM individualized lingual retainers: An

Cita Nottmeier, Talisa Schwieder, Gina Marie Georgi, Carmen Schmid-Hermann, Bärbel Kahl-Nieke, Daniel Seiler, Christoph Bourauel, Till Koehne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Cita NottmeierDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5442-6882
Talisa SchwiederDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6370-2462
Gina Marie GeorgiDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0082-2878
Carmen Schmid-HermannDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2034-0793
Bärbel Kahl-NiekeDepartment of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5941-6746
Daniel SeilerMedical Additive Manufacturing, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Muttenz, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9772-1132
Christoph BourauelDepartment of Oral Technology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2195-1011
Till KoehneDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8830-1964

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomaterial scienceRetention and stability

Identifiers

PMID41877680
PMCPMC13021321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.