ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2023
Bond strength, degree of conversion, and microorganism adhesion using different bracket-to-enamel bonding protocols.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Two Bonding Systems on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study :.Galen medical journal · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of bonding protocols and the type of orthodontic resin on the adhesion of microorganisms, degree of conversion (DC), and shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic brackets to enamel.
methodsA total of 60 bovine incisors were prepared and randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 10): "bonding protocol" (A: phosphoric acid; AXT: A+Transbond™ XT primer adhesive [all Transbond™ products from 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA]; and SE: Transbond™ Plus Self Etching Primer) and "orthodontic resin" (XT: Transbond™ XT adhesive paste and CC: Transbond™ Plus Color Change). After bonding, the samples were subjected to thermocycling (5000 cycles) and to the SBS test. Bond failures were classified according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Next, 60 enamel blocks were sterilized in ethylene oxide in order to perform the CFU (Streptococcus mutans) assay in vitro to analyze the colony forming units (CFU/mL). Then, 60 discs of each orthodontic resin were made to measure the DC. The SBS (MPa), CFU/mL, and DC (%) data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (5%) was performed for the DC.
resultsCFU and SBS revealed no significance for all factors (P > 0.05). Tukey's test showed that A_XT (acid+Transbond™ XT adhesive paste) presented the highest DC (70.38% ± 10.5), while AXT_XT (acid+Transbond™ XT primer adhesive+Transbond™ XT adhesive paste) showed the lowest (23.47% ± 10.4). An ARI score of 2 was more frequent for the CC resin and an ARI score of 4 for the XT resin.
conclusionThe CC resin does not reduce adhesion of S. mutans around orthodontic brackets and the bonding protocol did not influence the SBS, although the SE and A_XT groups contributed to a better DC.
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.