ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of preformed orthodontic archwires with modified dental arch forms: A cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelecting an archwire that respects a patient's native arch form is central to stability and periodontal safety. This study quantified Yemeni adult dental arch dimensions and predominant arch forms and compared them with commonly used preformed nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires using a bracket‑point-based reference graph.
methodsIn this cross‑sectional analysis, pretreatment casts from 222 subjects (Angle Class I and II; 16-28 years) were digitized. Clinical bracket points defined transverse widths (intercanine, Wc; intermolar, Wm) and depths (Dc, Dm). Arch form was categorized as tapered, ovoid, or square. Twenty‑seven 0.019 × 0.025‑inch preformed rectangular NiTi archwires were traced on a reference grid incorporating bracket‑base offsets, and widths at the canine (L3) and first‑molar (L6) levels were compared with sample means. Repeatability was assessed on a subsample.
resultsOvoid was the predominant arch form. Males exhibited larger transverse dimensions than females. Across brands, most preformed NiTi archwires were wider than natural arches at the canine level. Mean (archwire-arch) differences were + 3.38 mm at maxillary canines and + 1.94 mm at maxillary first molars; in the mandible, + 4.05 mm at canines and + 1.53 mm at first molars.
conclusionsNo single preformed archwire matched the Yemeni adult sample across arches and landmarks. Clinical selection should prioritize archwires that approximate the patient's pretreatment form, with individualized adjustments where indicated.
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.