ArticleCureus2025
Precision and Practicality: A Novel Cellulose Gum-Based Indirect Bonding Protocol for Orthodontic Bracket Placement.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study presents an innovative indirect bonding (IDB) protocol that utilizes a cellulose gum-based denture adhesive for precise orthodontic bracket placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a cost-effective IDB protocol using a cellulose gum-based denture adhesive as a temporary cast adherent. The objectives included assessing bracket transfer accuracy via digital superimposition, laboratory efficiency, and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at the Department of Orthodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Kadapa, India, with ethical approval and informed consent. Working casts were prepared, and McLaughlin, Bennett, Trevisi (MBT) prescription brackets (n = 20) were aligned using pencil markings and an MBT height gauge. Dentofit R adhesive (ICPA Health Products Ltd.) was applied to bracket bases, activated by a three-second water mist, and stabilized for five minutes. Light-body polyvinyl siloxane (Zhermack Elite HD+) was used for gingival block-out, followed by thermoforming 1.0-mm soft thermoplastic sheets (Leone S.p.A.) using a vacuum/pressure thermoformer. Trays were immersed in water for five minutes to dissolve the adhesive, and the brackets were cleaned for intraoral bonding. Transfer accuracy was assessed by digitizing casts (T1) and intraoral arches (T2) using an intraoral scanner (Runyes R), with deviations measured using the MeshLab software at four bracket wing points. The laboratory cleanup time, bracket transfer accuracy, and ARI scores were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using paired t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA; one-way, two-way, and three-way), and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05).
resultsCervical wings showed greater mean deviation (0.45 ± 0.53 mm) than incisal wings (0.24 ± 0.18 mm) (p = 0.02), with no significant differences in horizontal versus vertical deviations (p = 0.172) or mesial versus distal sides (p = 0.766). The overall deviation was clinically acceptable (p = 0.333; mean difference 0.04 mm from the 0.3 mm threshold). The median ARI score was 0, indicating the absence of adhesive remnants. The cleanup averaged 20 minutes per arch.
conclusionThe cellulose gum-based IDB protocol offered precise, cost-effective bracket placement with efficient cleanup and is suitable for resource-limited settings, although cervical wing accuracy requires further optimization.
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.