ArticlePloS one2026
Bond strength of debonded orthodontic brackets after different reconditioning and priming protocols: An in vitro study.
Article in PloS one, 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
introductionAlthough various bracket recycling methods have been studied, the combined influence of bracket reconditioning methods and primer protocols on the bonding performance of debonded orthodontic brackets remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three reconditioning methods and three primer protocols on the bond strength of rebonded orthodontic brackets to enamel. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred stainless steel brackets were bonded to extracted premolars and divided into 10 groups (n = 10). Ninety brackets were debonded, reconditioned using OneGloss bur, flaming, or sandblasting, and rebonded with Mani Bond, Denu Bond, or no primer. Ten new brackets served as controls. Bracket bases were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Bond strength, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and bonding reliability were evaluated using SBS testing, ARI scoring, and Weibull analysis.
resultsBond strength was significantly influenced by the interaction between reconditioning method and primer protocol (p < 0.001). Sandblasting combined with Mani Bond produced the highest bond strength (9.33 ± 3.02 MPa), whereas OneGloss and sandblasting combined with Denu Bond achieved bond strengths comparable to new brackets and higher reliability, reflected by greater Weibull moduli (4.74 and 4.72). SEM demonstrated more effective mesh cleaning after sandblasting than after OneGloss bur treatment or flaming. ARI distributions differed significantly among groups (p = 0.01), with failures occurring predominantly at the bracket-adhesive interface.
conclusionsThe bonding performance of rebonded orthodontic brackets is influenced by the interaction between reconditioning and priming protocols. Appropriate combinations of these procedures may improve the rebonding outcome.
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.