ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
Esthetic comparison of two composites used for Invisalign's attachments bonding.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esthetics is a factor of great importance for most patients undergoing treatment with Invisalign® aligners. When choosing a resin composite for the bonding of attachments required for the treatment, ideal characteristics such as low visibility and stain resistance of the material are essential to increase the overall perceived esthetics of the treatment. The objective of this article was to evaluate the esthetics of two resin composites used for attachment reproduction: the Transbond XT® from 3M® and the Tetric EvoCeram® from Ivoclar Vivadent®. Material and Methods: An analytic, observational, longitudinal, and prospective study was done. Attachments were bonded on 51 patients, and a dental survey about esthetics was given 3 months after the bonding of attachments. The Student's t-test and 1-factor ANOVA tests were used, when the variables were normal, and the nonparametric alternative of the tests was used when they were not distributed normally. Results: The results indicate that there are no statistically significant differences (p>.05) in the esthetic perception of attachments according to the type of composite used. Conclusions: Even if some differences are observed between the resins, both Transbond XT® and Tetric EvoCeram® can be considered for attachments bonding from an esthetical point of view.
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.