ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2017
Evaluation of surface roughness of enamel after various bonding and clean-up procedures on enamel bonded with three different bonding agents: An
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of enamel surface roughness and hardness with metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets using different etching and adhesive systems: AnThe Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
- A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding.The Saudi dental journal · 2021Article
- Enamel Remineralization Competence of a Novel Fluoride-Incorporated Bioactive Glass Toothpaste-A Surface Micro-Hardness, Profilometric, and Micro-Computed Tomographic Analysis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2021Article
- Comparative evaluation of enamel surface roughness after debonding using four finishing and polishing systems for residual resin removal-an in vitro study.Progress in orthodontics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the enamel surface roughness before bonding and after debonding, to find correlation between the adhesive remnant index and its effect on enamel surface roughness and to evaluate which clean-up method is most efficient to provide a smoother enamel surface. MATERIAL AND
methods135 premolars were divided into 3 groups containing 45 premolars in each group. Group I was bonded by using moisture insensitive primer, Group II by using conventional orthodontic adhesive and Group III by using self-etching primer. Each group was divided into 3 sub-groups on the basis of type of clean-up method applied i,e scaling followed by polishing, tungsten carbide bur and Sof-Lex disc. Enamel surface roughness was measured and compared before bonding and after clean-up.
resultsEvaluation of pre bonding and post clean-up enamel surface roughness (Ra value) with the t test showed that Post clean-up Ra values were greater than Pre bonding Ra values in all the groups except in teeth bonded with self-etching primer cleaned with Sof-Lex disc. Reliability of ARI score taken at different time interval tested with Kruskal Wallis test suggested that all the readings were reliable.
conclusionsNo clean-up procedure was able to restore the enamel to its original smoothness. Self-etching primer and Sof-Lex disc clean-up method combination restored the enamel surface roughness (Ra value) closest to its pre-treatment value.
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.