Literature DB >> 22006128

Retention of orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified GIC versus composite resin adhesives--a quantitative systematic review of clinical trials.

Steffen Mickenautsch1, Veerasamy Yengopal, Avijit Banerjee.   

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to establish whether the clinical debonding (failure) rates of orthodontic brackets bonded either with resin-modified glass ionomer (RM-GIC) or with composite resin adhesive are the same. Five databases were searched for articles up to 18 November 2010. Inclusion criteria were titles/abstracts relevant to the review question and two or more arm clinical trial. Exclusion criteria were the following: no computable data recorded and subjects of both groups not followed up in the same way. From the accepted trials, datasets were analysed concerning clinical precision and internal validity. Eleven trials were accepted. From these, 15 dichotomous datasets were extracted. Relative risk with 95% confidence interval of nine datasets showed no statistically significant differences in outcome between the treatment and control group after 6 months-1.32 years. Five showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05), favouring resin composite bonding after 12 and 18 months. One favoured RM-GIC after 10 months. Meta-analysis found no difference in the failure rate between the two treatment groups after 12 months (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42; p = 0.40) and found in favour of composite resin adhesive after >14 months (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.60-3.17; p < 0.00001). All trials had poor internal validity due to selection and detection/performance bias risk. The current evidence suggests no difference between the types of materials after 12 months but favours composite resin adhesives after a >14-month period. However, its risk of selection and detection/performance bias are high, and all results need to be regarded with caution. Further high quality randomised control trials addressing this topic are needed. The clinical relevance of this study is that RM-GIC may have the same clinical debonding (failure) rate as composite resin adhesives after 1 year when used for bonding of orthodontic brackets.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22006128     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0626-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  34 in total

1.  Sandblasted metal brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in vivo.

Authors:  Mete Ozer; Selim Arici
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 2.  Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

Authors:  D T Millett; A M Glenny; C R Mattick; J Hickman; N A Mandall
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

Review 3.  Orthodontic bonding with glass ionomer cement--a review.

Authors:  D T Millett; J F McCabe
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: Bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva.

Authors:  V Cacciafesta; C Bosch; B Melsen
Journal:  Clin Orthod Res       Date:  1999-11

5.  Decalcification and bond failure: A comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo.

Authors:  M Gaworski; M Weinstein; A J Borislow; L E Braitman
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  J A Miguel; M A Almeida; O Chevitarese
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 8.  Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

Authors:  Anneli Ahovuo-Saloranta; Anne Hiiri; Anne Nordblad; Marjukka Mäkelä; Helen V Worthington
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-10-08

9.  A new light-cured glass ionomer cement that bonds brackets to teeth without etching in the presence of saliva.

Authors:  E Silverman; M Cohen; R S Demke; M Silverman
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 10.  A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality.

Authors:  Vance W Berger; Sunny Y Alperson
Journal:  Rev Recent Clin Trials       Date:  2009-05
View more
  3 in total

1.  Characteristics of glass ionomer cements composed of glass powders in CaO-SrO-ZnO-SiO₂ system prepared by two different synthetic routes.

Authors:  Ill Yong Kim; Chikara Ohtsuki; Aisling Coughlan; Lana Placek; Anthony W Wren; Mark R Towler
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 3.896

2.  Shear Bond Strength of Molar Tubes to Enamel Using an Orthodontic Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Modified with Amorphous Calcium Phosphate.

Authors:  Behrad Tanbakuchi; Tabassom Hooshmand; Mohammad Javad Kharazifard; Kiana Shekofteh; Arian Hesam Arefi
Journal:  Front Dent       Date:  2019-10-15

Review 3.  Caries-Preventive Effect of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Resin-Based Fissure Sealants on Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.