ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2024
Comparison of Three Different Orthodontic Adhesives Bonded to Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: SEM and SEM/EDX Analysis (
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does attachment removal damage enamel? Influence of adhesive, resin, and bur on surface integrity.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare three different orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive, Heliosit Orthodontic, Fuji Ortho LC) bonded to two types of orthodontic brackets: ceramic brackets (Fascination Roth 0.22) and metallic brackets (Topic Roth 0.22, Dentaurum). Materials and methods: The study was performed on 18 human teeth (6 for each adhesive). The prepared teeth were divided into three groups according to the examination time. Subsequently, they were observed after 1, 2 and 3 weeks following bonding. After the experimental procedure, the teeth samples were cut in half along the longitudinal axis in the vestibulo-oral direction, fixed with conductive carbon cement, placed in a high-vacuum evaporator and then coated with carbon. One half of each sample was observed under a Field-emission gun scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM Hitachi SU 8030, Japan), while on the second half of the samples qualitative (X-ray line-scans) and semi-quantitative point X-ray energy dispersive analyses (EDX) were performed with Thermo Noran (USA) NSS System 7, equipped with Ultra Dry detector (30 mm Results: Transbond XT had an ideal bond with the enamel and the bracket base, with rare presence of microgaps and cracks in the enamel. Heliosit Orthodontic demonstrated a better bond relationship with the bracket base than the enamel, whereas in the latter the presence of microgaps in the bond was observed. The microphotographs of Fuji Ortho LC demonstrated many cracks inside the adhesive, and some of them continued to move forward into the enamel surface. Therefore, an impression of a very solid bond relationship with the enamel exists, with cracks being present in the enamel surface and never at the enamel-adhesive interface. Microgaps also appeared at the bracket-adhesive interface. Conclusion: Transbond XT is a highly filled composite resin and is an ideal orthodontic adhesive in each aspect examined, with an ideal enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interface. Heliosit Orthodontic provides better bracket-adhesive interface compared to the enamel. Fuji Ortho LC as a solid resin-modified GIC provides a better enamel-adhesive interface, compared to the bracket base.
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.