Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38858745›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2024

Mechanical properties of combined packable and high-filled flowable composite used for the fixed retainer: an in vitro study.

Yasaman Alamdarloo, Seyed Ali Mosaddad, Farzaneh Golfeshan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Effect of Preheating, Resin-Based Composite, and Wire Types of Orthodontic Lingual Fixed Retainers on the Load at Failure: A Comparative In-Vitro Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Yasaman AlamdarlooOrthodontic Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Seyed Ali MosaddadDepartment of Research Analytics, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Farzaneh GolfeshanOrthodontic Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. golfeshanfa@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8484-5593

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinicians often utilize both flowable and packable composites concurrently in bonding fixed retainers. Thus, this study aimed to assess the synergistic effect of these composites in the bonding process.

methodsThis in vitro study divided specimens into three groups: flowable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent), packable composite (nano-hybrid, Tetric N-ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent), and combined use of flowable and packable composite. Shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and wire pull-out resistance were compared among the groups. Statistical analyses were conducted using ANOVA and Tukey tests to compare study groups. Additionally, Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were employed to analyze the ARI index among the groups.

resultsANOVA results indicated no statistically significant differences among test groups (P = 0.129) regarding SBS. However, a significant difference existed between flowable and packable composite groups (P = 0.01) regarding ARI scores. Among the study groups, flowable composite exhibited the highest frequencies of ARI scores of 1 and 2, whereas packable composite showed the highest frequency of ARI scores of 0. The combined group had higher frequencies of ARI scores of 0 and 1 compared to the flowable composite. The wire pull-out test revealed that the combined application of flowable and packable composite resulted in significantly lower detachments compared to the packable composite alone (P = 0.008). However, no significant differences were observed in the comparisons between the flowable-packable (P = 0.522) and combined-flowable (P = 0.128) groups.

conclusionThe combined use of flowable and packable composites for fixed retainers demonstrated adequate shear bond strength and ideal ARI scores, suggesting it as a suitable adhesive system for bonding orthodontic fixed retainers.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsMaterials TestingOrthodontic RetainersShear StrengthDental BondingDental Stress AnalysisHumansIn Vitro TechniquesComposite Resinsflowable hybrid compositeAdhesiveBiomedical and dental materialCompositeFixed retainer

Identifiers

PMID38858745
PMCPMC11165839

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.