ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical bracket failure rates between different bonding techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive agents on fatigue-based shear bond strength: an in vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Combined Primer and Adhesive Systems in Orthodontic Bonding: An In Vitro Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Effect of High-Power LED Barriers on Shear Bond Strength and Curing Time in Orthodontic Brackets With Single-Component Adhesive.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Curing of the Primer on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An Original Research.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Survival rate of indirectly bonded brackets using single vs. two-component orthodontic adhesive: A 12-month split-mouth clinical trial.The Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of a Primer Incorporated Orthodontic Composite Resin: An In-Vitro Study.Cureus · 2022Article
- Enhanced antimicrobial and remineralizing properties of self-adhesive orthodontic resin containing mesoporous bioactive glass and zwitterionic material.Journal of dental sciences · 2022Article
- A remineralizing orthodontic etchant that utilizes calcium phosphate ion clusters.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the clinical and in vitro performance of single-component orthodontic adhesives under metal brackets. MATERIALS AND
methodsBimaxillary orthodontic treatment was required for sixty patients and 60 premolar teeth were divided into three groups (n: 20). The single-component orthodontic adhesives Biofix and GC Ortho Connect (GC) that did not require primers were compared to the control group using Transbond XT, which was applied with a primer. For each patient, total bonding time was measured. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI
resultsClinical failure rate with primer was 9.0%, while it was 8.0 and 10.0 for GC and Biofix, respectively. The mean in vitro SBS values of the Biofix, GC, and Transbond XT groups were 8.21, 8.07, and 7.37 MPa, respectively. There were no statistically differences in clinical failure (p = 0.160) and SBS values (p = 0.158). Mean differences in bond-up time per jaw were 9.65, 10.51, and 11.97 min, which were statistically significant (p = 0.0001).
conclusionSingle-component adhesives had acceptable SBS values and enamel effects according to SEM-EDX analysis. Clinically, bonding failure was not shown statistically inferior to bonding with primer. There was also a significant difference in bond-up times. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Considering an intensely working clinic with bonding processes for at least two jaws per day, this means a saving of the chair time of 1 patient per week. However, better saliva contamination and moisture control with lack of the primer stage and, thereby, an acceptable bracket failure rate will bring clinically significant results with less chair time for clinicians.
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.