ArticleBMC oral health2026
Shear bond strength of laser-sintered orthodontic appliances bonded to enamel using various bonding protocols: 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
objectivesThis in vitro study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure mode of laser-sintered orthodontic metal specimens bonded to enamel using different bonding protocols (with or without enamel sandblasting and four adhesive systems).
methodsTwo hundred and forty bovine teeth were randomly allocated to no sandblasting (control) or sandblasting (50 µm, 1 bar) and bonded with 3D-printed Co-Cr discs using either light-curing orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT, Transbond LR) or dual-curing resin cements (RelyX Unicem 2 Automix, Panavia SA Cement Universal Automix) (2 × 4 design; n = 30/group). After SBS testing, the failure mode was documented. Welch's ANOVA was used to compare SBS across groups (S, C, and subgroups); p < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsDual-curing adhesives (RX, PA) showed higher SBS than light-curing adhesives (XT, LR) (p = 0.001). The highest SBS was observed in RX (33 MPa), and the lowest in XT (18 MPa). A surface treatment × adhesive effect was found, although not statistically significant (p = 0.21). Failures occurred mainly on the metal side (> 50%; 140/240).
conclusionsDual-curing adhesives showed higher SBS when bonding laser-sintered Co-Cr appliances to bovine enamel, with failures predominantly occurring on the metal side. Sandblasting of enamel did not increase SBS under the conditions tested. As SBS values exceeded the clinically acceptable range, additional enamel sandblasting may not be clinically necessary. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For bonding laser-sintered Co-Cr appliances, dual-curing adhesives may provide clinically acceptable SBS, but higher values could increase enamel damage risk during debonding. Enamel sandblasting showed no SBS benefit in this protocol.
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.