ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of the Conventional Acid-Etching System and the Self-Etching Primer in Bonding Metallic Orthodontic Brackets: An In-Vitro and In-Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel-bonded orthodontic brackets with the conventional acid etching (CAE) system and the self-etching primer (SEP) in vitro and to compare the clinical performance of both systems when used in the treatment of malocclusion patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the first part of the study, 40 extracted human premolars were randomly divided into two groups containing 20 teeth. The first group (the conventional enamel etching group) employed 37% phosphoric acid before bonding the metallic brackets (0.022-inch slot, MBT prescription, American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA). The etching system was Tetric 5th (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The second group used a SEP (Sep Tetric 7th, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) to bond the same brackets. In the first part of the study, SBS was evaluated, followed by the adhesive remnant index (ARI) assessment. The second part of the study (i.e., the clinical part) assessed a cohort of 30 patients during a 6-month observation period. The upper 10 teeth (from the second premolar on the right side to the second on the right side) were bonded using the chosen method for each patient in the clinical assessment. That is, 150 teeth in each group were evaluated regarding the failure rate. The ARI was assessed for those teeth that lost their brackets.
resultsThe mean SBS was greater in the SEP group compared to the CAE group (17.93 MPa and 16.60 MPa, respectively; P = 0.014). The difference was not statistically significant. Conversely, the failure rate was lower in the CAE group compared to the SEP group, with a failure rate of 6% and 14.7%, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.014). However, the ARI showed no statistically significant difference in in-vivo and in-vitro analyses, as most bracket failures were at the adhesive level.
conclusionLaboratory results showed no statistical difference in the SBS mean values between the two groups. Clinically, the SEP group showed a greater failure rate than the CAE group, but both failure rates in the two groups were within the clinically acceptable range. The ARI did not show any difference between the two groups in terms of the failure site when the evaluation was conducted in vivo and in vitro, as most of the areas of failure were concentrated in the material itself.
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.