ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2024
Evaluation of Microleakage in Flash-Free and Conventional Ceramic Brackets: A Microcomputed Tomography Study.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare microleakage under the conventional and flash-free ceramic brackets bonded with different agents. Methods: Forty extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into five groups. According to the groups, adhesive coated and conventional bracket systems were bonded to the tooth surfaces with the specified adhesive agents. To simulate a six-month oral environment, all teeth were subjected to a thermal cycle procedure. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to view and measure the microleakage. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the parameters and Mann-Whitney U test was used for the determination of the group that caused the difference. For intragroup comparisons Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Results: Microleakage volume (mm Conclusion: Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets were not shown a significant difference compared to their conventional equivalent for microleakage volume. The brackets bonded with Blugloo™ adhesive were showed significant less microleakage than the other groups.
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.