Primary study · included by 1 review
Firoz 2019
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel remineralization / anti-demineralization extent Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including Ag-, Zn-, fluoride-, or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control · pH cycling 14 days to 6 months (majority 14 days) | Out of 13 studies that evaluated bioactive glass particles/nanoparticles, 9 reported definitive statistically significant remineralization potential compared to control orthodontic adhesives [17, 21-24, 26-28, 31]; one… | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Enamel remineralization or anti-demineralization Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Control orthodontic adhesives · 5 days to 6 months | no estimate extracted | 24 studies | Ungraded |
1 including review in total.