ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metal brackets with zirconia: effects of adhesive systems and storage conditions.
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
objectiveThe current study assessed the shear bond strength of two orthodontic bracket materials to zirconia using two bonding approaches and two storage settings.
methodsTwo bonding strategies were selected to bond metal and ceramic brackets to zirconia samples. Before being tested for Shear Bond Strength [SBS], samples were either subjected to 5,000 thermocycles or kept in water for 24 h. Samples were divided into 8 Groups [n = 10] represented as Group 1: Ceramic Brackets + HEMA-Free Bonding System + Water Storage, Group 2: Ceramic Brackets + HEMA-Containing Bonding System + Water Storage, Group 3: Metal Brackets + HEMA-Free Bonding System + Water Storage, Group 4: Metal Brackets + HEMA-Containing Bonding System + Water Storage, Group 5: Ceramic Brackets + HEMA-Free Bonding System + Thermocycling, Group 6: Ceramic Brackets + HEMA-Containing Bonding System + Thermocycling, Group 7: Metal Brackets + HEMA-Free Bonding System + Thermocycling, Group 8: Metal Brackets + HEMA-Containing Bonding System + Thermocycling. Several independent groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and two independent groups were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test. A P-value < 0.05 was deemed significant.
resultsShear bond strength was significantly greater in ceramic than in metal [5.9 ± 2.6 vs. 4.9 ± 2.3, p = .026] and in 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate HEMA-containing systems compared to HEMA-free systems [6.1 ± 2.3 vs. 4.8 ± 2.4, p = .034]. Water storage settings also yielded higher bond strength than thermocycling conditions [6.9 ± 1.8 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2, p < .001].
conclusionThe findings indicate that shear bond strength was significantly influenced by bracket material and adhesive system to zirconia. Additionally, storage settings play a crucial part in shear bond strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Developing effective bonding techniques for orthodontic brackets and zirconia ceramic materials remains a major clinical obstacle.
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.