Article

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

University Dental School and Hospital, Department of Oral Health and Development, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2007; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment.
Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (29th January 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 29th January 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to 29th January 2007). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication.
Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included.
All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria.
There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

1 Follower
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction La Collaboration Cochrane est une organisation internationale scientifique à but non lucratif, dont l’objet est de produire et de diffuser des revues systématiques d’essais cliniques randomisés. L’objectif de ce travail est de lister les différentes revues systématiques Cochrane existantes en orthopédie dentofaciale, et d’analyser leurs principales caractéristiques. Matériel et méthodes La sélection des revues systématiques Cochrane en rapport avec l’orthopédie dento-faciale est effectuée à partir de la liste exhaustive publiée par le Groupe Cochrane pour la santé buccodentaire. Résultats Un total de 12 revues systématiques Cochrane en rapport avec l’orthopédie dento-faciale est recensé. Toutes concluent à la nécessité de conduire des essais cliniques randomisés avec une méthodologie plus adaptée, et réalisés sur des effectifs plus importants. Aucune de ces revues systématiques n’apporte des éléments de preuve solides en faveur de tel ou tel traitement ou modalité de traitement. Discussion Malgré l’absence de conclusions pertinentes issues des revues systématiques Cochrane encore peu nombreuses en ODF, leur consultation régulière s’avère un outil indispensable pour l’orthodontiste dans le cadre d’une démarche de pratique clinique quotidienne factuelle, mais aussi pour l’orthodontiste chercheur. En effet, la recherche clinique en ODF doit se développer, et permettre la mise en œuvre d’essais cliniques randomisés méthodologiquement indiscutables. Cependant, des études alternatives aux essais cliniques randomisés existent, à moindre niveau de preuves, mais peut-être plus adaptées à la spécificité de l’orthopédie dento-faciale.
    International Orthodontics 09/2010; 8(3):278-292. DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2010.07.013
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the flexural, compressive and diametral tensile strengths of five cements used in orthodontics for band cementation. Twelve specimens of each cement were tested: 1 - GC Fuji Ortho Band (FJ), GC America Inc.; 2 - Meron (MR), Voco; 3 - Multi-Cure Glass Ionomer Band Cement (MC), 3M Unitek; 4 - Band-Lok (BL), Reliance Orthodontic Products; and 5 - Ketac Cem (KC), 3M ESPE. The results (mean) for diametral tensile strength were: 10.51 MPa (FJ), 9.60 MPa (MR), 20.04 MPa (MC), 42.80 MPa (BL), and 4.08 MPa (KC). The results for compressive strength were (in the same order): 64.50 MPa, 77.71 MPa, 94.21 MPa, 193.88 MPa, and 81.93 MPa. The results for flexural strength were (in the same order): 20.72 MPa, 25.84 MPa, 53.41 MPa, 137.41 MPa, and 20.50 MPa. The statistical analysis was performed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests with p-value £ 0.05. In terms of diametral tensile strength, BL showed the highest strength statistically, and MC, the second highest. In terms of compressive tensile strength, BL showed the highest strength statistically, and FJ did not attain the minimum recommended strength. In terms of flexural tensile strength, BL cement was superior to MC, and MR, FJ and KC were equivalent and inferior to BL and MC.
    Brazilian oral research 03/2013; DOI:10.1590/S1806-83242013005000002 · 0.77 Impact Factor