ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vitro evaluation of the efficacy of a new orthodontic primer in metallic brackets cementation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- The Influence of Orthodontic Bracket Base Design and Bonding System on Shear Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Shear bond strength of three composite resins for orthodontic bracket bonding on enamel and ceramic surfaces: an in vitro study after accelerated aging.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Two Bonding Systems on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study :.Galen medical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adhesives are essential for attaching orthodontic brackets to the tooth surface and ensuring safe removal during debonding. ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-Restorative (ABR) is a bioactive composite with potential advantages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-Restorative (ABR) with conventional adhesives, including Transbond XT™ (TXT) and Orthocem™ (OC). A total of 51 human maxillary premolars were distributed randomly into three groups (n = 17). Each group was bonded with one adhesive following the manufacturer's protocols. Then were subjected to 5000 thermocycles to simulate oral conditions. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and ARI scores were visually analysed under magnification. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA and chi-squared tests, with a 0.05 level of significance. Mean SBS values were 11.26 MPa, 12.52 MPa, and 12.96 MPa for ABR, TXT, and OC, respectively, with no significant differences (p = 0.513). ARI analysis revealed significant differences (p = 0.009) as ABR predominantly exhibited ARI 3 scores, indicating no adhesive remnants on enamel. In contrast, TXT and OC groups showed higher adhesive retention. ABR demonstrated shear bond strength comparable to conventional adhesives, meeting the clinical thresholds for orthodontic use. But demonstrated more complete adhesive failure in the enamel-adhesive interface rather than cohesive failure within the adhesive material like in TXT and OC.
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.