Primary study · included by 1 review
A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) method between direct bonding and indirect bonding techniques in adolescents: a single-centre, single-blind randomized controlled trial
Atilla et al. 2020 · Atilla Aykan Onur, Ozturk Taner, Eruz Mustafa Murat, et al. · European Journal of Orthodontics · 2019
doi:10.1093/ejo/cjz058journal-article
Trial PICO
Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.
Results
Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
White spot lesion formation measured by QLF Indirect bonding with flowable adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding with Transbond XT · Before and after treatment | The DB group exhibited significantly higher loss of fluorescence and degree of demineralization compared to the IB group between T0 and T1, with notable differences in specific quadrants (p <0.05 for ΔF and ΔF max). | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT) · Before and after treatment (T0 to T1) | Atilla 2020 (1 single-blind parallel RCT, 51 patients): the direct-bonding group had significantly greater loss of fluorescence and demineralization and larger lesion areas than the indirect-bonding (flowable… | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
1 including review in total.