ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Bond Strength of Different Eighth-Generation Adhesives in Orthodontic Bonding.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis in vitro study aims to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) values of various eighth-generation adhesives used in orthodontic bonding. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: A total of 40 extracted human premolars were randomly divided into four groups; (i) Group 1: 3M Unitek Transbond-XT (fifth-generation adhesive, conventional etch, 3M Electro & Communication India Private Limited, Bengaluru, India) (ii) Group 2: 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal (eighth-generation, 3M Electro & Communication India Private Limited, Bengaluru, India), (iii) Group 3: Tetric-N-Bond Universal (eighth-generation, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), and (iv) Group 4: G-Premio Bond (eighth-generation, GC Corporation, London, UK). The premolars, stored in saline water, were bonded with stainless steel brackets using respective bonding agents and 3M Unitek Transbond-XT composite. The SBS values were tested using an Instron universal testing machine (Asian Test Equipments, Ghaziabad, India). Post-debonding, ARI scores for each group were evaluated using a stereomicroscope at 10X magnification.
resultsThe SBS values for the adhesives were 3M ESPE Single Bond Universal (2.29 ± 1.12 MPa), Tetric-N-Bond Universal (5.26 ± 2.6 MPa), G-Premio Bond (5.07 ± 1.72 MPa), and 3M Unitek Transbond-XT (10.22 ± 4.83 MPa). ARI scores differed across groups, with most samples showing a score of 2 and only the 3M Unitek Transbond-XT group recording an ARI score of 3. The Chi-square value was 19.42 (p = 0.02), indicating a moderately significant difference.
conclusionThis study concluded that while eighth-generation adhesives like Tetric-N-Bond Universal and G-Premio Bond offer advantages in enamel protection and cleanup due to lower ARI scores, their SBS was lower than that of 3M Unitek Transbond-XT, which performed significantly better.
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.