ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2018
Shear bond strength of ceramic bracket bonded to different surface-treated ceramic materials.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the effect of femtosecond laser surface treatment on the bond strength of zirconia to metal brackets: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review and Clinical Study on Er:YAG Laser Debonding of Ceramic and Composite Veneers.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Shear Bond Strength of Clear Aligner Attachment Using 4-META/MMA-TBB Resin Cement on Glazed Monolithic Zirconia.Polymers · 2024Article
- Comparison of shear bond strength and residual adhesive remnants on the enamel surface after debonding of three different orthodontic molar tubes : A scanning electron microscope study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024Article
- Effects of Plasma Treatment on the Strength of Bonding to Ceramic Surfaces in Orthodontics-A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Bond Strength and Surface Roughness of Two Ceramics After Metal Bracket Debonding.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Shear Bond Strength between Orthodontic Brackets and Monolithic 4Y-TZP: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Shear Bond Strength and Bracket Base Morphology of New and Rebonded Orthodontic Ceramic Brackets.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- What Is the Most Effective Technique for Bonding Brackets on Ceramic-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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
backgroundThis study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of ceramic brackets to machine-able ceramics and ceramic veneering metal. MATERIAL AND
methodsMachined ceramic specimens (10x10x1.5 mm) were prepared from Empress® CAD (EP), and e.max® CAD (EM). Ceramic veneering metal specimens (PF) were fabricated from sintered d.Sign® porcelain (1.27 mm thickness) over d.Sign®10 metal (0.23 mm thickness). Each ceramic was divided into 3-groups and treated surface by Er-YAG laser (LE) or etching with 9.6% HF acid for 5 seconds (A5) or 15 seconds (A15). Resin adhesive (Transbond™-XT) was used for attaching ceramic brackets for each group (n=15) and cured with LED (Bluephase®) for 50 seconds. Specimens were immersed in distilled water for 24 hours before testing for shear bond at crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed for the differences in bond strength with ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). De-bond surfaces were microscopically examined.
resultsBond strength (MPa) were 12.65±1.14 for EMA5, 14.50±2.21 for EMA15, 13.97±1.17 for EMLE, 12.40±1.95 for PFA5, 15.85±3.13 for PFA15, 14.06±2.17 for PFLE, 12.12±1.54 for EPA5, 15.65±1.57 for EPA15, 12.89±1.17 for EPLE. Significant differences in bond strength among groups were found related to surface treatment (
conclusionsBond strength was affected by surface treatment. Both LE and A15 treated surface provided higher bond strength than A5. Considering possibly inducing defect on ceramic surface, LE seems to provide better favorable surface preparation than others. Treated ceramic surface with Er-YAG prior to bracket bonding is recommended.
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.