ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to permanent teeth using three different etching techniques. Materials and Methods: 30 extracted premolar teeth were divided and treated with various etching agents: Group I (11% hydrofluoric acid), Group II (5% maleic acid), and Group III (7% phosphoric acid). The surfaces were etched for 30 sec, primed with Trans bond XT adhesive, and bonded with metal brackets. An Instron Universal Testing Machine was used to measure the shear bond strength (SBS). Tukey post-hoc tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the data; Results: Our study found significant differences in SBS between the three etching agents. Group I (11% hydrofluoric acid) showed the highest SBS (10.52 MPa), followed by Group III (37% phosphoric acid) with 8.29 MPa, and Group II (5% maleic acid) with 6.70 MPa. The differences between the groups were statistically significant ( Conclusion: 11% hydrofluoric acid is the most effective etching agent for orthodontic bonding, offering bond strengths within the clinically acceptable range.
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.