ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
Improving Orthodontic Bracket Adhesion to Monolithic Zirconia: Pretreatment Protocols Across Different Zirconia Types.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe increasing use of monolithic translucent zirconia for fixed dental restora-tions in orthodontic patients has created new challenges for reliable bracket bonding. This in vitro study evaluated the influence of different surface pretreatment protocols on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets bonded to 3-mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP) and 5-mol% yttria-stabilized partially stabilized zirconia (5Y-PSZ) ceramics using an adhesive resin cement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety-six specimens were prepared (n = 48 per zirconia type), each providing two bonding interfaces (n = 192). Three surface pretreatment protocols were tested: pumice slurry (PS), silicon carbide burr roughening (SiB), and alumina air-particle abrasion (AP). Metal brackets were bonded using an MDP-containing self-adhesive resin cement and a custom 3D-printed bonding device, applying a standardized load of 7.4 N. Half of the specimens were tested for SBS after 3 days of water storage at 37°C; the remaining half after artificial aging (37,500 thermocycles between 5°C and 55°C) for 150 days. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis; Mann-Whitney U with Bonferroni-Holm correction; α = 0.05).
resultsArtificial aging significantly affected SBS, whereas zirconia type had no significant influence. After 3 days, no significant differences were observed among surface pretreatment methods. Following artificial aging, AP and SiB pretreatments achieved significantly higher SBS values than PS for both zirconia types. AP yielded the highest bond strengths overall (up to 51.3 MPa for 5Y-PSZ after 150 days). Spontaneous debonding occurred only in the PS groups.
conclusionAlthough AP pretreatment achieved the highest bond strength values, its clinical application is limited by the risk of surface damage and uncontrollable intraoral pressures. SiB pretreatment provided clinically sufficient bond strength while preserving zirconia surfaces, representing a safer and more practical alternative. Pumice slurry alone was inadequate for reliable bonding. Thus, SiB can be recommended as a minimally invasive and effective clinical protocol for orthodontic bonding to zirconia restorations.
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.