ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of orthodontic bracket bonding on the surface roughness of e.max glass ceramics: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthodontic treatment is now commonly used in adult patients, mandating bonding brackets to existing ceramic crowns. The bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets might alter the surface roughness of glass ceramics, promoting plaque accumulation and compromising gingival health. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of different bracket bonding and polishing techniques on the surface roughness (Ra) of e.max samples. Fifty e.max samples were cut and fired, after which orthodontic brackets were bonded to the samples after phosphoric acid (PhA), hydrofluoric acid (HFA), roughening, roughening and PhA, and roughening and HFA treatment. After removal of the bracket and excess bond, surfaces were polished using either Sof-Lex discs or a ceramic polishing kit. Surface roughness was measured after firing, after debonding, and after polishing. Differences between groups at each step were compared with one-way ANOVA and t-tests. There was a significant increase in surface roughness after bracket removal using all five bonding techniques, especially after use of mechanical roughening techniques (one-way ANOVA p < 0.0001). Although surface roughness was still significantly higher than baseline after polishing with all surface treatments and for both polishing approaches, Ra values were all < 0.3 μm, which is clinically acceptable. Sof-Lex discs were more effective when used with PhA and HFA, ceramic polishing was more effective when used with roughening, and the polishing system had no effect with roughening or acid etching. Physical surface preparation has a greater effect on surface roughness than chemical preparation and, in general, polishing returns the surface to a clinically acceptable state.
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.