ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of shear bond strength of new and rebonded ceramic brackets with and without hydrofluoric acid conditioning: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCeramic orthodontic brackets are widely used for their aesthetic advantages; however, their bonding strength, particularly upon rebonding, remains a concern. Effective surface-conditioning methods are essential to optimize shear bond strength (SBS) under laboratory conditions. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) conditioning and airborne particle abrasion (APA) are commonly employed techniques to enhance bracket adhesion.
methodsThirty monocrystalline ceramic brackets were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 10 each). Group A (control) consisted of new ceramic brackets; Group B included rebonded brackets treated with tungsten carbide burs, APA for ≥ 30 s, and 9.5% HF for 90 s; Group C included rebonded brackets treated with tungsten carbide burs and APA only. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min until bracket detachment, and values were recorded in MPa.
resultsThe mean SBS for new brackets was 13.51 ± 5.61 MPa. Rebonded brackets with HF conditioning (Group B) showed 6.88 ± 2.55 MPa, and rebonded brackets without HF conditioning (Group C) showed 6.36 ± 3.60 MPa. One-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference among groups (p = 0.0287). Tukey’s post hoc analysis indicated significantly higher SBS for Group A compared with Group B (p = 0.007) and Group C (p = 0.011), as well as a significant difference between Groups B and C (p = 0.009).
conclusionsNew ceramic brackets demonstrated significantly higher immediate SBS than rebonded brackets under in vitro conditions. Although HF conditioning slightly enhanced immediate SBS compared with APA alone, both methods yielded lower bond strengths than new brackets. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, APA may be considered a practical alternative to HF conditioning for rebonded ceramic brackets.
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.