Primary study · included by 1 review
Asokan 2024
ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Shear bond strength (MPa) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD 2.64 [-1.54, 6.82] | 4 studies · 180 participants | GRADE not reported |
Enamel damage index (EDI) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD -0.04 [-0.28, 0.2] | 3 studies · 108 participants | Very low |
Adhesive remnant index (ARI) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD 0.18 [-0.1, 0.46] | 6 studies · 270 participants | Very low |
Residual adhesive surface area (mm2) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD -0.57 [-1.13, -0.02] | 5 studies · 326 participants | Very low |
Adhesive remnant index (ARI) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD 0.29 [0.04, 0.55] | 5 studies · 238 participants | GRADE not reported |
Adhesive removal time (s) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD -24.89 [-50.29, 0.51] | 6 studies · 348 participants | Very low |
Shear bond strength (MPa) Fluorescent orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional non-fluorescent adhesives · After debonding | MD 1.07 [-3.05, 5.19] | 5 studies · 212 participants | Very low |
1 including review in total.