ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
Shear bond strength in two types of indirect orthodontic cementation.
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.
- Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study.The Saudi dental 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the shear bond strength of brackets cemented to dental enamel according to the cementation techniques. Material and Methods: Experimental study. We used 90 premolars and placed them in printed polylactic acid (PLA) filament models to simulate the dental arch shape and to then cement brackets using the direct, indirect technique with Transbond™XT and indirect technique with Orthocem®. Then, we carried out a shear bond strength test using a universal testing machine, and we evaluated the enamel surface using the adhesive resin remaining index. Dunn's test was used for the inferential statistical analysis of shear bond strength, and Fisher's exact test was used for the adhesive resin remaining index. Results: The shear bond strength of the brackets recorded mean values of 16.74±4.48Mpa, 15.93±6.49Mpa and 12.09±5.07Mpa in the direct, indirect technique with Transbond™XT and indirect technique with Orthocem® respectively. At an inferential level, a lower statistically significant difference was found in the indirect group with OrthoCem® in contrast to the other two groups. In the evaluation of resin remaining after detachment, the direct technique group registered 46.7% of teeth with more than half of resin remaining and the indirect technique groups with Transbond™XT and Orthocem® registered less than half of resin remaining with an incidence of 53.3% and 43.3% respectively. At an inferential level, a statistically significant difference between groups was evidenced. Conclusions: The indirect cementation technique using Transbond™ XT is more recommended since it presents a higher shear bond strength than using Orthocem®.
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.