ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2022
Comparison of flash-free and conventional bonding systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. 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.
- Orthodontic Bracket Removal and Enamel Roughness: Comparing the Effects of Sapphire and Metallic Brackets in an In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A comparative in vitro study on monomer release from flash-free or conventional bonding systems.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Effect of Different Liquids and Thermal Aging Procedures on the Shear Bond Strength of APC II, APC Flash-Free, and Conventional Ceramic Brackets: AnTurkish journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the literature systematically to compare the performance of adhesive precoated flash-free bonding systems with conventional adhesive precoated (APC) and operator-coated (OPC) bonding systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for potential eligible studies. Study selection and data collection were conducted independently. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3. The Cochran Q test was used to test heterogeneity in the included studies. Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials.
resultsSix studies were included and the overall risk-of-bias judgment was low risk of bias to some concerns. The results of the meta-analyses showed that flash-free required significantly less bonding time than APC (mean difference [MD]: -1.56; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: -2.56 to -0.56), and no significant differences were found in bond failure rates (risk ratio [RR]: 1.54; 95% Cis: 0.27 to 8.89) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) (MD: -0.50; 95% CIs: -1.14 to 0.14) between them. Qualitative analysis showed that flash-free might have a positive effect on enamel demineralization compared to APC but the quantity of plaque did not differ between them.
conclusionsThe flash-free bonding system significantly reduced bonding time and it had comparable bond failure rates with APC. So far, there is not enough evidence to support its positive effect on reducing enamel demineralization and the pathogenic bacteria around brackets. In summary, flash-free might be a better choice for clinical bracket bonding.
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.