ReviewCureus2026
Orthodontic Elastics: A Narrative Review of Biomechanics, Biological Responses, and Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Everyday Practice.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biodegradable Polymer Ligatures and Auxiliaries in Orthodontics: An Empty Systematic Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
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
Orthodontic elastics remain fundamental auxiliaries in both fixed appliance and clear aligner treatment, providing versatile intermaxillary and intra-arch force systems. Their clinical performance is determined by lumen diameter, material composition, elastic memory, and force decay behaviour, which together influence the periodontal ligament response and surrounding hard and soft tissues. Latex elastics generally provide higher initial force levels and superior elastic recovery but are associated with risks of mucosal irritation and hypersensitivity. Non-latex alternatives improve biocompatibility yet tend to show greater force degradation over time. Medium-force elastics (approximately 3.5-4.5 oz) are commonly used for sagittal correction, whereas lighter 2-3 oz configurations are preferred for vertical control, finishing, and intercuspation. The increasing integration of skeletal anchorage and aligner therapy allows more precise vector control and helps to minimise unwanted effects such as molar extrusion, occlusal plane rotation, and incisor tipping. This narrative review summarises current evidence on the biomechanics, material properties, biological responses, and clinical applications of orthodontic elastics, and synthesises practical recommendations for everyday practice. A structured, non-systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar identified relevant clinical trials, laboratory investigations, systematic reviews, and key textbook chapters on force delivery, force decay, biocompatibility, compliance, and clinical outcomes. On the basis of the available evidence, light, continuous forces within the range of approximately 70-120 g, combined with at least twice-daily elastic replacement and rigorous attention to vector control, appear optimal for safe and efficient tooth movement. Material selection should balance mechanical stability with biocompatibility, particularly in patients with suspected latex sensitivity. Mastery of elastic biomechanics, awareness of biological limits, and proactive management of patient compliance together underpin predictable and patient-centred outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.