Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33404765›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2021

Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance.

Ufuk Ok, Sertac Aksakalli, Elif Eren, Nourtzan Kechagia

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ufuk OkDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Aydin University, Florya, 34295, Istanbul, Turkey. dtufukok@hotmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2920-0351
Sertac AksakalliDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Aydin University, Florya, 34295, Istanbul, Turkey.
Elif ErenDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Aydin University, Florya, 34295, Istanbul, Turkey.
Nourtzan KechagiaDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Aydin University, Florya, 34295, Istanbul, Turkey.
Istanbul Aydın University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental BondingOrthodontic BracketsDental CementsDental Stress AnalysisHumansMaterials TestingResin CementsShear StrengthSurface PropertiesDental CementsResin CementsAdhesive Remnant IndexEnamel Surface IndexOne-year follow-upShear bond strengthSingle-component adhesivesSurvival rate

Identifiers

PMID33404765
OpenAlexW3118631334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.