↓ Skip to main content

Comparative assessment of the efficacy of closed helical loop and T-loop for space closure in lingual orthodontics—a finite element study

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Comparative assessment of the efficacy of closed helical loop and T-loop for space closure in lingual orthodontics—a finite element study
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40510-018-0210-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ajay Chacko, Tripti Tikku, Rohit Khanna, Rana Pratap Maurya, Kamna Srivastava

Abstract

Retraction in lingual orthodontics has biomechanical differences when compared to labial orthodontics, which is not yet established. Thus, we have intended to compare the biomechanical characteristics of closed helical loop and T-loop on 1 mm activation with 30° of compensatory curvatures during retraction in lingual orthodontics. STb lingual brackets were indirectly bonded to maxillary typhodont model that was scanned to obtain FEM model. Closed helical loop (2 × 7 mm) and T-loop (6 × 2 × 7 mm) of 0.016″ × 0.016″ TMA wire were modeled without preactivation bends. Preactivation bends at 30° were given in the software. Boundary conditions were set. The force (F) and moment (M) of both the loops were determined on 1 mm activation, using ANSYS software. M/F ratio was also calculated for both the loops. T-loop exerted less force, thus increased M/F ratio as compared to closed helical loop on 1 mm activation. When torque has to be preserved in the anterior segment during retraction in lingual orthodontics, T-loop can be preferred over closed helical loop.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#159
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,071
of 344,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.