Trial reportEvidence-based dentistry2026
Resin infiltration or bioactive adhesive: which treatment provides better esthetic satisfaction for post-orthodontic white spot lesions?
Trial report in Evidence-based 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onAlbashaireh ZS, Altallaq MK. Assessment of patient satisfaction and esthetic outcomes following treatment of post-orthodontic white spot lesions using a bioactive adhesive and resin infiltrant: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2026;167:106565.
designSplit-mouth randomized clinical trial of 20 orthodontically treated patients (13 female, 7 male) involving 120 teeth with anterior white spot lesions (WSLs). Each participant received ICON resin infiltration or Hi-Bond Universal in contralateral quadrants. Esthetic changes were assessed by the patients and by two independent clinicians using a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at one-month recall. CASE SELECTION: Participants aged 16-30 years and who had completed fixed orthodontic treatment at least one month before enrollment were included. Eligible participants presented with at least one visible WSL on the labial surfaces of the anterior teeth or premolars on contralateral quadrants. All participants were required to have good oral hygiene, clinically healthy gingival tissues, and no evidence of active periodontal disease. DATA ANALYSIS: Categorical outcome data were presented using descriptive summary measures including frequencies and percentages. The proportion of satisfactory vs. unsatisfactory outcomes (paired binary data) was compared between the Hi-Bond Universal and ICON treatments using the McNemar test.
resultsOverall patient satisfaction was equally high (80%) for both treatments, and there were no significant differences between patient or clinician ratings. Inter-assessor agreement was deemed "fair" for both groups (Cohen's kappa 0.318-0.340). Thus, both ICON and Hi-Bond Universal effectively masked WSLs, as deemed by subjective esthetic evaluation.
conclusionBoth bioactive adhesives and resin infiltration achieve satisfactory esthetic outcomes in masking demineralized enamel, at least in the short-term. Further longitudinal studies comparing the outcomes of these materials would be beneficial to determine whether these effects are sustained over time.
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.