ArticleHeliyon2024
Effect of different surface conditioning methods and low pH solutions on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to newly introduced CAD/CAM materials.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of flash-free polymeric adhesive on enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding under simulated cariogenic and gastric acid conditions.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Bond strength of conventional resin-based adhesive cement and self-adhesive resin cement to CAD-CAM restorative materials.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic and metallic orthodontic brackets bonded to lithium disilicate ceramics or hybrid ceramics and subjected to different surface conditioning treatments. Materials and methods: In total, 300 specimens were fabricated from GC LiSi (lithium disilicate) and GC Cerasmart (hybrid) ceramic blocks. The specimens were divided into four groups according to the following surface treatments: hydrofluoric acid (HF); sandblasting with 50 μm aluminum oxide; Monobond Etch and Prime; and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er-YAG) laser. Metal (Victory Series) and ceramic (Clarity) brackets were bonded using an orthodontic adhesive resin (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek, CA, USA). The specimens were then stored in three different mediums (artificial saliva, mouth rinse, and gastric juice) and thermocycled. An SBS test was performed after 1 week. The surface morphology was examined after the conditioning treatments using a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, Results: The SBS data revealed that the type of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) block and surface conditioning method significantly affected the SBS. The highest SBS was recorded (10.112 MPa) for the HF-treated hybrid ceramic blocks stored in the saliva medium, while the lowest SBS (1.862 MPa) was reported for the Er-YAG laser-treated lithium disilicate ceramic blocks stored in the gastric juice medium. GC Cerasmart exhibited better bond strength than that of GC LiSi; however, no significant difference was observed between the ceramic and metal brackets. Conclusion: The CAD/CAM material, surface conditioning method, and medium affect the SBS.
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.