ArticlePloS one2025
Effects of manufacturing modality, primer, and adhesive polymerization on the shear bond strength of customized lingual brackets to glazed zirconia: An in vitro study.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBonding fixed appliances to zirconia restorations is challenging, yet adult orthodontics increasingly involves ceramic crowns and patient-driven esthetic choices such as lingual appliances. Customized lingual brackets may improve fit and reduce adhesive thickness, but evidence on their bonding to zirconia is limited. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strength of customized lingual brackets bonded to glazed zirconia after airborne-particle abrasion. Bracket manufacturing was either three-dimensionally (3D) printed cobalt-chromium or cast nickel-chromium. Primers were a universal adhesive (Single Bond Universal, 3M) or a primer containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate Z-Prime Plus (Bisco), and adhesives were a light-cure orthodontic composite or a dual-cure resin cement. One hundred twenty-eight specimens (n = 16 per group) were tested. Shear bond strength was analyzed with three-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey tests. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were evaluated with ordinal regression. Significance was set at α = 0.05.
resultsManufacturing modality significantly affected bond strength, with additively manufactured cobalt-chromium exceeding cast nickel-chromium (P = 0.049). The primer category and polymerization mode showed no significant main effects (P > 0.20) and no significant interactions. Group means clustered 9-10 MPa, and all combinations met the clinically accepted threshold. Additively manufactured brackets exhibited lower ARI scores than cast brackets (P < 0.001), indicating failures closer to the zirconia-adhesive interface. The fabrication×primer term was significant for ARI (P = 0.017).
conclusionsOn glazed, sandblasted zirconia, shear bond strength of customized lingual brackets showed a borderline main effect of fabrication method, whereas primer type and adhesive polymerization mode were not statistically significant. Failures were predominantly located at or near the zirconia-adhesive interface. Within this in vitro model, base manufacturing may warrant attention, whereas primer and curing mode may be selected for handling and workflow considerations, with clinical relevance yet to be established.
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.