ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Recycled Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Following Different Surface Treatment Methods: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionFixed orthodontic treatment relies on adequate bond strength between brackets and enamel to withstand functional forces during therapy. The recycling of debonded brackets is a common practice to reduce treatment costs; however, it may compromise the shear bond strength (SBS) depending on the reconditioning method and bracket material. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the SBSs of recycled metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets after different surface treatment methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 96 extracted human premolars were randomly divided into two main groups: metal brackets and ceramic brackets (n = 48 each). Each group was further subdivided into four subgroups (n = 12): control (new brackets), sandblasting with 50 µm aluminum oxide, burnout followed by ultrasonic cleaning, and finishing bur. All brackets were bonded using a standard protocol with a light-cured orthodontic adhesive. After debonding, the recycled brackets were treated with the respective surface-conditioning methods and rebonded to fresh teeth. The SBS was tested using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey's post-hoc test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe new brackets exhibited the highest SBS in both the metal (20.57 ± 1.16 MPa) and ceramic (26.01 ± 1.42 MPa) groups. All recycling methods significantly reduced bond strength compared to the control group. Sandblasting demonstrated superior performance among the recycling techniques, yielding 13.07 ± 2.26 MPa for metal and 20.37 ± 3.41 MPa for ceramic brackets, followed by burnout with ultrasonic cleaning (12.12 ± 0.81 MPa for metal and 14.38 ± 1.64 MPa for ceramic brackets). The finishing bur method resulted in the lowest bond strength values (7.09 ± 1.13 MPa for metal and 14.08 ± 1.49 MPa for ceramics). Two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects of bracket type and surface treatment, along with a significant interaction between them, indicating that the effect of recycling methods differed between metal and ceramic brackets (p < 0.05).
conclusionRecycling orthodontic brackets reduces the SBS, with the magnitude of reduction varying according to the surface treatment method and bracket material. Sandblasting was the most effective in-office recycling technique. Although recycled brackets, especially those treated with sandblasting, may achieve clinically acceptable bond strengths, new brackets are recommended for optimal performance, particularly with ceramic systems. Further in vivo studies are warranted to confirm these findings under clinical conditions.
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.