ArticleBMC oral health2024
Effect of fence tray matching care on excess adhesive and bracket placement accuracy for orthodontic bonding: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of fence tray matching care (FTMC) in bracket bonding by measuring excess adhesive, as well as linear and angular deviations, and by comparing it with the half-wrapped tray (HWT). MATERIALS AND
methodsAn intraoral scanner was used to acquire data on the maxillary dental arch of a patient with periodontitis.Furthermore, 20 maxillary dental arch models were 3D printed. Using 3Shape, PlastyCAD software, and 3D printing technology, 10 FTMC (method I) and HWT (method II) were obtained. By preoperative preparation, intraoperative coordination, and postoperative measurement, the brackets were transferred from the trays to the 3D-printed maxillary dental arch models. Additionally, the bracket's excess adhesive as well as linear and angular deviations were measured, and the differences between the two methods were analyzed.
resultsExcess adhesive was observed in both methods, with FTMC showing less adhesive (P< 0.001), with a statistical difference. Furthermore, HWT's vertical, tip and torque, which was significantly greater than FTMC (P< 0.05), with no statistical difference among other respects. The study data of incisors, canines, and premolars, showed that the premolars had more adhesive residue and were more likely to have linear and angular deviations.
conclusionsThe FTMC had higher bracket bonding effect in comparison to HWT, and the adhesive residue, linear and angular deviations are smaller. The fence tray offers an intuitive view of the precise bonding of the bracket, and can remove excess adhesive to prevent white spot lesions via care, providing a different bonding method for clinical applications.
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.