ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB
Bacterial endotoxin adhesion to different types of orthodontic adhesives.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of chlorhexidine mouthwash on subgingival bacterial endotoxin activity and periodontal status during treatment with metal and non-metal fixed orthodontic appliance: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- In vitro study of structural and mechanical properties of latex and non-latex intermaxillary orthodontic elastics.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2023Article
- Photosensitizers attenuate LPS-induced inflammation: implications in dentistry and general health.Lasers in medical science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess whether LPS adheres to orthodontic adhesive systems, comparing two commercial brands. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty specimens were fabricated from Transbond XT and Light Bond composite and bonding agent components (n=10/component), then contaminated by immersion in a bacterial endotoxin solution. Contaminated and non-contaminated acrylic resin samples were used as positive and negative control groups, respectively. LPS quantification was performed by the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate QCL-1000™ test. Data obtained were scored and subjected to the Chi-square test using a significance level of 5%.
resultsThere was endotoxin adhesion to all materials (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between composites/bonding agents and acrylic resin (p>0.05). There was no significant difference (p>0.05) among commercial brands. Affinity of endotoxin was significantly greater for the bonding agents (p=0.0025).
conclusionsLPS adhered to both orthodontic adhesive systems. Regardless of the brand, the endotoxin had higher affinity for the bonding agents than for the composites. There is no previous study assessing the affinity of LPS for orthodontic adhesive systems. This study revealed that LPS adheres to orthodontic adhesive systems. Therefore, additional care is recommended to orthodontic applications of these materials.
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.