ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Soft adhesives may cause more iatrogenic damage than hard adhesives during cleanup following bracket removal.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine if adhesive remnants and enamel loss after debonding and cleanup with a finishing bur were affected by hardness properties of the adhesive resins. Materials and Methods: Stainless steel orthodontic brackets (American Orthodontics, Mini Master series) were bonded on facial surfaces of extracted premolars using a relatively soft bioactive resin (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-Restorative, Pulpdent) or harder traditional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M; N = 20/group). Bracketed teeth underwent 5000 thermocycles before brackets were debonded. Debonding surfaces were examined qualitatively and categorized by three examiners. Remaining adhesive was removed with a carbide finishing bur. Teeth were scanned with an optical scanner before brackets were bonded (baseline), after debonding, and after cleanup. Surface changes (mean thickness or depth, affected surface area, and volume) were calculated quantitatively after aligning scans to the baseline. Differences between the two groups were analyzed statistically with Mann-Whitney U-test or pairwise comparison at a significance level of 0.05. Results: Qualitative examination of debonded surfaces did not show a significant difference (P = .7949) in adhesive remnants between groups, which was confirmed by quantitative evaluation (P > .05). After cleanup, enamel loss was significantly higher in the softer bioactive resin group (mean depth = 91 ± 16 µm, area = 24.48 ± 9.88 mm2) than the harder traditional adhesive (mean depth = 66 ± 9 µm, area = 6.34 ± 4.41 mm2; P < .0001). Conclusions: The likelihood of adhesive remnants after debonding a bracket bonded with the bioactive resin was similar to traditional adhesive. However, enamel loss from cleaning up with a finishing bur was higher for the softer bioactive resin.
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.