ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2023
Comparison of shear bond strength of metallic brackets bonded to ceramic surfaces utilizing different adhesive systems: An
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Failure Modes of Transbond XT and Orthomite LC After Thermal Cycling: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metal brackets with zirconia: effects of adhesive systems and storage conditions.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Bond strength of orthodontic brackets to CAD/CAM ceramics following various surface treatments.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to three different types of ceramic surfaces (feldspathic, lithium disilicate, and zirconium) using Assure® Plus All and Transbond™ XT adhesives. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe sample comprised 72 monolithic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic samples that were randomly divided into six groups of 12 specimens each. Three groups (G1, feldspathic ceramic; G3, lithium disilicate ceramic; G5, zirconium surfaces) were bonded to metal brackets using Assure® Plus All adhesive, whereas the remaining three groups (G2, G4, G6; with the ceramic type in the same order as that in the previous groups) were bonded to metal brackets using Transbond™ XT. The samples were then subjected to 10,000 thermocycles. The SBS was calculated using the shear tests. The site of bonding failure was classified using the adhesive remnant index (ARI) score. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analyses at a 5% significance level.
resultsStatistically significant differences were observed in the mean SBS values of the groups (
conclusionsThe mean bonding strength of brackets with Assure® Plus All was higher than that with Transbond™ XT for all three types of ceramics. However, all groups, except the zirconium plus Transbond™ XT group, showed acceptable bonding strength for orthodontic purposes. The application of hydrofluoric acid followed by silane and finally the Assure® Plus All adhesive system is adequate for bonding brackets to any of the ceramic tested surfaces.
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.