Introduction Orthodontic research has grown for more than a century, but its evidence base has not been examined across its full history. We evaluated its evolution in publication growth, citation impact, journal distribution, geographic contribution, and international collaboration. Methods We froze an OpenAlex topic-indexed corpus (“Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics”) on December 31, 2025, and, after removing pre-1900 metadata artefacts, analysed 46,265 records from 1900 to 2025; in a two-rater manual check of a random sample, 92.4% of records were genuinely orthodontic (precision; recall not assessed). We assessed growth, structural transitions, citation inequality, field-weighted citation impact (FWCI), publishing concentration, country-level output, language, and collaboration. Results Output accelerated after a structural changepoint in 1996: the absolute slope of annual output (records added per year) increased more than 25-fold while the proportional growth rate remained broadly stable; 86.5% of the corpus dates from 1996 onward. Citation impact was skewed (median 2 citations, 35.7% uncited, Gini coefficient 0.794). Annual mean FWCI exceeded 1.0 from 2022 onward, although over short citation windows. Among venue-resolved records, the annual Herfindahl-Hirschman Index fell from 920 in 1990 to 97 in 2024, and 95% of the 2024 output was spread across 460 venues (1455 across all years). Among the 62.5% of records with resolved affiliations, the United States led cumulative output under whole counting (5265 papers), followed by Brazil (3360) and India (2757); India led annual output in 2021–2024. Internationally co-authored papers were associated with higher citation impact than single-country papers in every period (median FWCI 0.90 versus 0.47). Conclusion Orthodontic research is now predominantly post-1990s, globally redistributed, dispersed across a large journal ecosystem, and highly asymmetric in citation impact. These results provide a quantitative baseline; they are consistent with, but do not by themselves establish, implications for literature retrieval, journal selection, and collaborative research strategy.
Introduction Aesthetic outcomes are a primary concern for adult orthodontic patients. Clinicians often rely on soft tissue simulation software, such as Dolphin Imaging (D-Tech) and WebCeph (D-Tech), to manage patient expectations. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of these two tools in predicting soft tissue profile changes in non-growing skeletal Class II patients treated with maxillary first premolar extractions. Methods A retrospective comparative study was conducted on patients treated by the same practitioner with bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions and maximum anchorage. From a private-practice database of 2535 patients treated between January 2015 and January 2025, 34 met the inclusion criteria after eligibility screening. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs and profile photographs were used to generate simulations. Predicted cephalometric measurements from D-Tech and W-Tech were compared with each other and with the actual post-treatment results. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, one-sample t-tests, Bland-Altman plots, and linear regression. Results Thirty-four patients (10 males, 24 females; 35.7±3.5 years) were analysed. Both tools showed a significant discrepancy in the nasolabial angle versus actual results (P<0.001). D-Tech differed significantly in the subnasale to Holdaway-line distance (mean difference 0.81mm [95% CI 0.03 to 1.60]; P=0.042), while W-Tech differed in upper and lower lip position relative to the True Vertical Line (LL–TVL P=0.004; UL–TVL P=0.006). For the remaining parameters, both tools showed good agreement; D-Tech showed a proportional bias for lip–TVL position (greater underestimation at larger values), whereas W-Tech overestimated lower lip thickness. Conclusion Both Dolphin Imaging and WebCeph provide clinically applicable predictions for most soft tissue parameters. Several statistically significant lip-position discrepancies were within the range generally considered clinically imperceptible (=1.5-2.0mm), whereas the nasolabial angle showed a discrepancy that is both statistically and clinically relevant. Predictions should therefore be interpreted with caution, particularly for parameters prone to systematic bias.
Background This study aimed to compare the effects of three nanoparticle coatings, silver (Ag), silver/zinc oxide (Ag/ZnO), and silver/titanium dioxide (Ag/TiO2), on cytotoxicity, antibacterial activity, and surface roughness of stainless-steel (SS) orthodontic brackets. Materials and methods A total of 148 SS brackets were divided into four equal groups (n=37): Ag-coated, Ag/ZnO-coated, Ag/TiO2-coated, and uncoated control. Coatings were applied by physical vapor deposition to a thickness of 50nm. Surface coatings were analysed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Cytotoxicity was assessed using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay on oral epithelial cells. Antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans was evaluated using the disk diffusion method. Surface roughness was measured using AFM. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test (P ≤ 0.05). Results Cell viability differed significantly among groups (P=0.001), with Ag/TiO2-coated brackets showing the highest viability among coated groups (86.81±2.92%), followed by Ag/ZnO (73.02±2.09%), whereas Ag-coated brackets showed the lowest viability (57.23±5.84%), indicating the highest cytotoxicity. Antibacterial testing demonstrated significant intergroup differences (P<0.001), where Ag/ZnO-coated brackets showed the highest inhibition zone against S. mutans (10.60±1.65mm), followed by Ag-coated (9.10±1.01mm) and Ag/TiO2-coated brackets (7.60±0.52mm), while controls showed no inhibition. Surface roughness analysis showed significant differences among groups for both average roughness (Ra) and root mean square roughness (Rq) (P=0.001), with Ag-coated brackets exhibiting the lowest roughness values (Ra: 2.12±1.18nm; Rq: 3.02±1.71nm). Conclusion Ag/TiO2 demonstrated the highest cell viability among the coated groups, whereas standalone Ag coatings exhibited the highest cytotoxicity. The ZnO/Ag combination showed the greatest antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans. All nanoparticle coatings reduced the surface roughness of stainless-steel brackets, with Ag coatings producing the smoothest surfaces.
Introduction To quantify the within-build agreement of linear dimensions and slot-wall angulation of custom orthodontic brackets fabricated by LCD-masked vat photopolymerization with their nominal computer-aided design (CAD) targets. Methods Fifty brackets were fabricated in one build by one operator using a zirconia nanohybrid photopolymer resin (Rodin Sculpture 2.0). Two examiners measured four outcomes using ImageJ and Geomagic Control X, with three repetitions per examiner and program. Only the 12-reading mean for each specimen and outcome was retained. Means, standard deviations (SDs), confidence intervals (CIs), and conformity with investigator-defined margins (±0.05mm and ±0.35°) were summarized. These margins were not validated clinical thresholds. The brackets were technical replicates of one build; measurement reliability and between-build reproducibility could not be estimated. Results The 50 consolidated specimen-level values yielded means (SDs) of 0.557 (0.015) mm for slot height, 0.711 (0.017) mm for slot depth, 0.999 (0.006) mm for base height, and 7.032° (0.174°) for slot-wall angulation. The corresponding 95% CIs were 0.552–0.561mm, 0.706–0.716mm, 0.997–1.000mm, and 6.982°–7.081°. Specimen-level conformity with the investigator-defined limits was 94%, 94%, 100%, and 96%, respectively. Conclusions In this single build completed by one operator, mean linear dimensions and slot-wall angulation were close to the CAD targets. The results describe geometric agreement of averaged measurements within that build; they do not establish measurement reliability, workflow reproducibility, or clinical material suitability.
