ArticleBMC oral health2026
In vitro evaluation of aligner attachment bond strength on enamel, composite, and lithium disilicate surfaces using different resin composites.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of aligner attachments bonded to enamel, composite-restored, and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic surfaces using flowable and high-viscosity resin composites.
methodsNinety extracted premolars were divided into three groups (n = 30) according to surface type: enamel (Group 1), composite resin restoration (Group 2), and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (Group 3). Groups 1 and 2 were etched with 37% phosphoric acid, while Group 3 was etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid. A universal adhesive was applied to all specimens. Each group was divided into two subgroups based on composite type (flowable or high-viscosity universal; n = 15). SBS and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were evaluated. One-way ANOVA, Student's t-test, and Fisher Freeman Halton test were used for statistical analyses (p < 0.05).
resultsThe highest SBS were obtained in Group 1 bonded with high-viscosity universal composite attachments (mean (± SD), 19.6 (± 6.7 MPa)), and the lowest were obtained in Group 2 bonded with flowable composite attachments (mean (± SD), 7.3 (± 1.8 MPa)). Comparison of three groups within themselves according to the composite resin factor, the mean SBS of Group 2 for high-viscosity universal resin was higher than for flowable resin (p < 0.001). ARI scores did not show a significant correlation with either tooth surface or composite resin type.
conclusionsHigh-viscosity resin composite provides more reliable bond strength than flowable composite when bonding aligner attachments to composite-restored surfaces. Both composite types demonstrated clinically acceptable bond strength on enamel and lithium disilicate surfaces.
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.