83 MPa, respectively. selleck Nintedanib This result shows that satisfactory bond strengths can be obtained when SEP is used for bonding brackets to the fluorosed teeth. Therefore, the second part of the null hypothesis was accepted. This result is in contrast with Weerasinghe et al16 who reported that severity of fluorosis affected the micro-SBS of a self-etching bonding system to fluorosed teeth. Their study also revealed that severe fluorosis decreased the SBS even with the traditional acid etching using 37% phosphoric acid. A higher incidence of ARI scores 1,2 and 3 in group II (Light Bond+Fluorosis) revealed that bond failures in this group was mainly cohesive in nature. This result was also in accordance with the lowest SBS values obtained in this group. It must be emphasized that this study was performed in vitro.

Therefore, SBS obtained in this study may not correspond well with clinical success. Further in vivo studies are still needed to substantiate the results of this study. CONCLUSIONS When standard etching protocol was used, enamel fluorosis significantly decreased the bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Satisfactory bond strengths were obtained when SEP was used for bonding brackets to the fluorosed teeth. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was presented in 85th Congress of the European Orthodontic Society, Helsinki, Finland, 2009.
The trend of the over-emphasis on having the results of a research work to be statistically significant (P<.05) is still going strong today due to the fact most researchers are statistically-phobiaed.

In this write-up, I want to encourage a research paper reader to firstly critique on the research process. Table 1 shows the stages of a research study that need to be addressed in detail before a credible and clinically relevant result could be obtained. Table 1 Stages of a research process.1 It is essential that stages 1 & 2 be properly set-up (available, hopefully, in the Materials & Methods of a paper) otherwise, even with the help of a statistician the results obtained will not be valid! For the results, the important question to ask is ��Is the work clinically relevant to me?�� An important point for a P-value worshipper to take note: ��P-value is influenced by sample size, the larger the sample size, the likelihood of P<.05 is increased!��. For example, a researcher wants to determine the correlation between airway volume & lower face height; Table 2a shows a relatively poor correlation of r=0.

271, P=0.100 with n=38. But when n was doubled, though the relationship remains poor, the P-value has become significant (P=0.018), see Table 2b �C the impact of sample size! Figure 1 shows the graphical presentation of the poor relationship. A good clinical relationship (say between lower face height and anterior face height, Carfilzomib r=0.827) will be given by r>0.7 (Figure 2). Figure 1 Scatter plot of a poor relationship. Figure 2 Scatter plot of a meaningful clinical relationship. Table 2a Correlation with n=38.