Question · asked by 1 review

Experimental orthodontic composite containing nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control: Enamel surface microhardness

Population
Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)
Intervention
Experimental orthodontic composite containing nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP)
Comparison
Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control
Outcome
Enamel surface microhardness

In vitro, a nano-hydroxyapatite-containing orthodontic composite showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Experimental orthodontic composite containing nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control
Superficial surface (enamel) mineralization (surface microhardness) · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro) · pH cycling 28 days, In vitro (laboratory), Overall
In vitro, a nano-hydroxyapatite-containing orthodontic composite showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).
Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) All outcomes
A study using an orthodontic composite containing nano-hydroxyapatite showed statistically significant remineralization compared with control orthodontic adhesives [34].1 studyGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic brackets: a systematic review…
2024 All outcomes
2005 to 2024 (search coverage; exact search date not reported)25Low / Low

Studies behind the findings

The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.