Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2023
Comparison of three orthodontic bonding systems in white spot lesion development: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07753512 (Effect of Different Adhesive Systems on White Spot Lesions During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Effect of Different Adhesive Systems on White Spot Lesions During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: A Split Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of Self-Assembling Peptide on White Spot Lesions in Orthodontic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of various interventions for the management of white spot lesions associated with fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic brackets: a systematic review of in vitro studies.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment? A Systematic Review.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2024Pooled 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
- Comparison of conventional and self-adhesive orthodontic bonding systems in white spot lesion formation: an in vitro confocal Raman microscopy analysis.The Angle orthodontist · 2026Article
- White spot lesions in fixed orthodontic treatment: Etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and future research perspectives.Journal of orthodontic science · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficiency, Shear Bond Strength, and Adhesive Remnant Index of TiOJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the development of white spot lesions (WSLs) during fixed orthodontic therapy among a conventional three-step bonding system, a self-etching primer bonding system, and a one-step adhesive bonding system. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-five patients were randomly allocated into three groups (group 1, conventional bonding system, n = 25; group 2, self-etch primer, n = 25; group 3, primer mixed with adhesive composite, n = 25). Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) was used to assess WSL parameters. Images were captured and then analyzed before treatment and at 2 months and 4 months after bond up. Lesion area (pixels), mean fluorescence loss (ΔF), and the number of newly developed WSLs were compared within and among the three groups. The significance level was P ≤ .05.
resultsThe mean increase in lesion area was 31.3 ± 2.8 pixels, 38.4 ± 4.3 pixels, and 119.5 ± 5.3 pixels for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P ≤ .001). For ΔF, the loss was 3.3% ± 0.3%, 4.4% ± 0.2%, and 6.6% ± 0.2% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These changes were significantly different (P ≤ .01 to P ≤ .001). The incidence of newly developed lesions was 9.5 WSLs in group 1, 10 WSLs in group 2, and 15.9 WSLs in group 3.
conclusionsThe lack of primer contributed to the development of a larger number of and more severe WSLs.
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.