|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bracketsMandall NA, Hickman J, Macfarlane TV, Mattick RCR, Millett DT, Worthington HV SummaryAdhesives for fixed orthodontic bracketsIt is useful for a clinician to know the best adhesive for fixing orthodontic brackets, so they do not fail during treatment.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
April 22. 2003 AbstractBackgroundBonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. Search strategyElectronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Selection criteriaTrials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure. Data collection and analysisData were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors (Nicky Mandall (NM) and Rye Mattick (CRM); Declan Millett (DTM) and Joy Hickman (JH2)). Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only. Main resultsThree trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. Authors' conclusionsIt is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review, however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives. |