ArticleEuropean journal of oral sciences2026
Does attachment removal damage enamel? Influence of adhesive, resin, and bur on surface integrity.
Article in European journal of oral sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In vitro evaluation of the efficacy of a new orthodontic primer in metallic brackets cementation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
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
Abstract
To evaluate the combination of composites, adhesive systems, and burs considering artificial accelerated aging (AAA), influence enamel roughness and morphology after attachment removal. One hundred ninety-two bovine enamel specimens were divided according to composite type (Transbond XT, flowable, bulk-fill flowable), adhesive system (Single Bond Universal or Transbond XT primer), and bur for attachment removal (multilaminated carbide or zirconia). Half of the samples were stored for 24 h at 37°C and the other half underwent 300 h of AAA. Surface roughness was measured using confocal laser scanning microscopy before and after attachment removal. Data were analyzed using three-way anova with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Significant differences in enamel roughness were observed according to composite type, adhesive system, and bur used. Multilaminated bur produced higher surface roughness compared to zirconia bur. Transbond composite, particularly when combined with orthodontic adhesive, exhibited greater enamel alteration after AAA. None of the protocols fully restored enamel surface to its original smoothness. Attachment removal inevitably alters enamel morphology, regardless of the materials used. Composite, adhesive, and bur's choice, as well as proper finishing and polishing, is essential to minimize enamel damage after clear aligner treatment.
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.