ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2023
Bond Strength and Surface Roughness of Two Ceramics After Metal Bracket Debonding.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of COLasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Effect of orthodontic bracket bonding on the surface roughness of e.max glass ceramics: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Impact of deglazing on biaxial flexural strength of high translucent zirconia: effect of hydrothermal aging, pH-cycling, and load-cycling.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aims of this study were to compare the bond strength between metallic brackets and two different glass ceramics and to evaluate the ceramic surface roughness after different finishing protocols. Methods: The surface roughness of lithium disilicate and resin matrix ceramic samples was measured (initial). All samples were treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane and bonded to metallic brackets with orthodontic cement adhesive. Shear bond strength tests were performed using a universal testing machine (n=12). The surface roughness was measured again (intermediate, n=6) after removing the remaining cement adhesive from the ceramic surfaces with a diamond or 24-blade bur after polishing the ceramic surfaces (final, n=6). Results: The resin matrix ceramic had the highest bond strength. The rotatory instrument used for the removal of cement adhesive did not affect the surface roughness of the resin matrix ceramic or lithium disilicate (p=0.985 and p=0.504, respectively), but did affect the evaluation time (p<0.001) for both restorative materials. The intermediate roughness was the highest. For the resin matrix ceramic, polishing promoted a final surface roughness similar to the initial condition; however, changes in the surface shape of this ceramic could be visibly observed when using a 24-blade bur. Conclusion: The bond strength of metallic brackets bonded on resin-matrix ceramics is higher than bonding on lithium disilicate. The use of diamond burs for the removal of the remaining adhesive from the resin matrix ceramics is highly recommended.
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.