ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Bond strength of orthodontic brackets to CAD/CAM ceramics following various surface treatments.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of two types of orthodontic brackets (ceramic and metal) bonded to two CAD/CAM ceramic materials (feldspathic ceramic and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic), each subjected to different surface treatments, and assessed adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-four ceramic discs (1 mm thick; n = 32 per material) were prepared. Surface pretreatments were alumina air abrasion followed by phosphoric acid etching or hydrofluoric acid etching. Each subgroup was bonded with metal or ceramic brackets using a light-cured adhesive. SBS was measured with a universal testing machine, and ARI was assessed under a stereomicroscope. Three-way ANOVA tested the effects of ceramic type, bracket type, and surface treatment (α = 0.05), and chi-square tests compared ARI distributions.
resultsThe results demonstrated that the ceramic type significantly influenced SBS (p = 0.004). Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic exhibited higher SBS values than feldspathic ceramic. Bracket type also had a significant effect on SBS, regardless of ceramic type or surface treatment (p = 0.001). However, the applied surface treatments did not produce a significant difference in SBS (p = 0.546); phosphoric acid etching after alumina air abrasion yielded comparable results to hydrofluoric acid etching. ARI scores did not differ significantly among groups, and debonded surfaces showed no gross ceramic damage under stereomicroscopy.
conclusionsCeramic type and bracket type significantly affected SBS, whereas surface pretreatment did not under the tested conditions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Balancing adequate bracket retention with safe debonding is essential for ceramic restorations. Comparable SBS between the two pretreatments and the absence of visible ceramic damage support conservative, clinically oriented conditioning protocols.
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.