Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37670283›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2023

Comparison of microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with five different adhesive systems: in vitro study.

Nela Masarykova, Emil Tkadlec, Zdenek Chlup, Jan Vrbsky, Alena Brysova, Pavlina Cernochova, Lydie Izakovicova Holla

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nela MasarykovaClinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic.
Emil TkadlecFaculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, 17. listopadu 1192/12, Olomouc, 779 00, Czech Republic.
Zdenek ChlupInstitute of Physics of Materials of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Žižkova 513/22, Brno, 616 00, Czech Republic.
Jan VrbskyInternational Clinical Research Center (ICRC), St. Anne's University Hospital, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic.
Alena BrysovaClinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic.
Pavlina Cernochova *Clinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic. pavlina.cernochova@fnusa.cz.
Lydie Izakovicova Holla *Clinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic.
Masaryk University · CZCzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Physics of Materials · CZPalacký University Olomouc · CZSt. Anne's University Hospital Brno · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrthodontic treatment is associated with numerous adverse side effects, such as enamel discoloration, demineralization or even caries. The presence of microleakage between the enamel and the adhesive and between the adhesive and the base of the orthodontic bracket allows penetration of the bacteria, molecules, and liquids into the enamel and can lead to unpleasant "white spot lesions" or secondary caries beneath and around the brackets. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate microleakage in five adhesive systems commonly used in orthodontic practice for bonding brackets.

methodsOne hundred extracted premolars were divided into five groups of twenty teeth. Stainless steel Legend medium metal brackets were bonded to teeth using five adhesive systems: resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement GC Fuji Ortho LC (GCF) and composite materials Light Bond (LB), Transbond XT (TB), Trulock™ Light Activated Adhesive (TL), and GC Ortho Connect (GCO). The specimens were subjected to thermal cycling, stained with 2% methylene blue, sectioned with low-speed diamond saw Isomet and evaluated under a digital microscope. Microleakage was detected at the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces from occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models with beta error distribution.

resultsMicroleakage was observed in all materials, with GCF showing the highest amount of microleakage. Composite materials GCO, TB, and LB exhibited the lowest amount of microleakage with no statistical difference between them, while TL showed a statistically significantly higher amount of microleakage (p < 0.001). The enamel-adhesive interface had more microleakage in all composite materials (GCO, LB, TB, and TL) than the adhesive bracket-interface (p < 0.001). The highest amount of microleakage occurred in the gingival region in all materials.

conclusionComposite materials showed better adhesive properties than a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The presence of microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface facilitates the penetration of various substances into enamel surfaces, causing enamel demineralization and the development of dental caries.

Indexed as

Dental CariesOrthodontic BracketsDental EnamelGlass Ionomer CementsHumansResearch DesignGlass Ionomer CementsAdhesiveBracketDemineralizationMicroleakageOrthodonticsThermal cycling

Identifiers

PMID37670283
PMCPMC10478400
OpenAlexW4386460363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.