ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Influence of bioactive varnish on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of bioactive varnish application on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to demineralized enamel. Bovine incisors were selected and randomly assigned to four groups based on enamel treatment: Group 1 - sound enamel, no treatment (positive control); Group 2 - enamel subjected to a pH-cycling demineralization protocol (negative control); Group 3 - demineralized enamel treated with bioactive varnish (PRG Barrier Coat®, Shofu) and stored in distilled water for 24 h; and Group 4 - demineralized enamel treated with the same varnish and stored in distilled water for 28 days. For SBS and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) tests (n = 15 per group), orthodontic brackets (Roth Max® slot 22, Morelli) were bonded to the enamel using the Transbond XT® adhesive system (3 M Solventum). Samples underwent thermocycling (500 cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C), followed by SBS testing using a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min) and ARI evaluation using stereomicroscopy. Enamel surfaces from each group (n = 3 per group) were also examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SBS data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's post hoc test. ARI scores were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, with significance set at 5%. The positive control group showed significantly higher SBS values compared to Groups 3 and 4 (p < 0.001). The negative control group showed intermediate values, with no significant differences from the other groups. A significant association was found between groups and ARI scores: in the positive control group, 53.3% of samples had ARI = 0 and 33.3% had ARI = 3; in the negative control group, 93.3% had ARI = 0. In Groups 3 and 4, 100% of the samples showed ARI = 0. SEM analysis revealed an intact surface in the positive control group, a porous surface in the negative control, and a varnish-covered surface in Groups 3 and 4, with Group 3 exhibiting a more homogeneous coating than Group 4. Conclusion: The application of bioactive varnish to demineralized enamel significantly reduced bracket bond strength and resulted in predominantly adhesive failures at the enamel interface. Clinically, this suggests that bonding orthodontic brackets directly to enamel treated with this bioactive varnish may compromise bond integrity, regardless of the waiting period after application.
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.