ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Mechanical properties of different types of composite resin used as clear aligner attachments: 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Material Properties of Composite Resins Used for Orthodontic Attachments in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review.Biomolecules · 2026Pooled it
- Finishing protocols of orthodontic attachments determine surface roughness and susceptibility to microbial colonization in vitro.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Composite resin is often used as an orthodontic attachment due to its esthetic appearance, ease of clinical manipulation, and micromechanical bonding to etched enamel tooth structures. The aim of this study was to compare the Vickers microhardness (VMH) and shear bond strength (SBS) of six types of composite resins (Tetric PowerFlow, Filtek™ Supreme Flowable Restorative, Clearfil Majesty Flow, Tetric PowerFill, Filtek™ Supreme XTE Universal, and Estelite Sigma Quick). Twelve composite resin discs were fabricated for VMH test for each composite group. And 15 rectangular composite resin attachments were bonded on natural extracted premolars for each SBS test. VMH values were retrieved using an INOVATEST microhardness device at T1 and T2 after thermocycling and toothbrushing intervention. SBS values were retrieved using a Universal Testing Machine after thermocycling aging. The VMH values of all materials showed statistically significant differences (p = < .01) between T1 and T2, as Clearfil Majesty Flow material did not show a significant difference and Filtek™ Supreme XTE Universal material showed a significant difference at (p = < .05) but not at (p = < .01). ANOVA revealed no statistically significant difference in the SBS values between the six composite resin materials. The Clearfil Majesty Flow composite resin was not affected by thermocycling or toothbrushing compared to all other composite 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.