Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.

BACKGROUND: Bonding 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. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane Review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials 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 ANALYSIS: Data 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. 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 RESULTS: Three 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' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch;(2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN RESULTS: 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. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Relationships between dental appearance, self-esteem, socio-economic status, and oral health-related quality of life in UK schoolchildren: A 3-year cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationships between dental appearance, characteristics of the individual and their environment, and oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) in young people over time. METHODS: A total of 374 young people (122 boys, 252 girls) aged 11-12 years from seven different XX schools were recruited at baseline and 258 (78 boys, 180 girls) followed-up 3 years later, aged 14-15 years (69 per cent response rate). Participants completed a measure of OHQoL (CPQ11-14 ISF-16) and self-esteem (SE, CHQ-CF87). A clinical examination was undertaken, including clinician and self-assessed normative measures of need [Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN)] and dental caries. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to indicate socio-economic status (SES). RESULTS: There was a general improvement between baseline and follow-up in the measures of malocclusion, as well as OHQoL. Multiple linear regression indicated that there were significant cross-sectional associations at baseline between OHQoL and SES (rho = -0.11; P = 0.006), SE (rho = -0.50; P < 0.001), and self-assessed IOTN (rho = 0.27; P < 0.001). There were significant longitudinal associations between the change in OHQoL and change in SE (rho = -0.46; P < 0.001) and change in the decayed, missing, or filled surfaces (rho = -0.24; P = 0.001). The mean improvement in the total CPQ11-14 ISF-16 score for those with a history of orthodontic treatment was 3.2 (SD = 6.9; P = 0.009) and 2.4 (SD = 8.8; P < 0.001) for those with no history of treatment. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.584). CONCLUSIONS: OHQoL improved in young people over time, whether they gave a history of orthodontic treatment or not. Individual and environmental characteristics influence OHQoL and should be taken into account in future studies.

Banding versus bonding of first permanent molars: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of banding versus bonding of first permanent molars during fixed appliance treatment; in terms of attachment failure, patient discomfort and post-treatment enamel demineralization. DESIGN: Multi-centre randomized clinical trial. SETTING: One District General Hospital Orthodontic Department and two Specialist Orthodontic Practices. PARTICIPANTS: Orthodontic patients aged between 10 and 18 years old, randomly allocated to either receive molar bands (n=40) or molar bonds (n=40). METHOD: Bands were cemented with a conventional glass ionomer cement and tubes were bonded with light-cured composite to all four first permanent molar teeth for each subject. Attachments were reviewed at each recall appointment to assess loosening or loss. The clinical end point of the trial was the day of appliance debond. Enamel demineralization at debond was assessed using the modified International Caries Assessment and Detection System (ICDAS). RESULTS: The first time failure rate for molar bonds was 18·4% and 2·6% for molar bands (P=0·0002). Survival analysis demonstrated molar bonds were more likely to fail compared with molar bands. First permanent molars with bonded tubes experienced more demineralization than those with cemented bands (P=0·027). There was no statistically significant difference in discomfort experienced by patients after banding or bonding first permanent molars (P>0·05). CONCLUSION: This study shows that as part of fixed appliance therapy, American Orthodontics photoetched first permanent molar bands cemented with 3M ESPE Ketac-Cem perform better than American Orthodontics low profile photo-etched and mesh-based first permanent molar tubes bonded with 3M Unitek Transbond XT in terms of failure behaviour and molar enamel demineralization.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 16 December 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 December 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 December 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, are included.Trials are also included where:(1) a tube is bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch; (2) molar tubes have been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA): a screening study to measure class II skeletal pattern, TMJ PDS and use of systemic corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE: To screen patients with oligoarticular and polyarticular forms of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) to determine (i) the severity of their class II skeletal pattern; (ii) temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms and (iii) use of systemic corticosteroids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional screening. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Sixty-eight children with JIA aged between 9 and 16 years old who were screened at four regional treatment centres in the UK. METHOD: Patients were screened clinically and radiographically for the presence of class II skeletal pattern and temporomandibular (TMJ) pain dysfunction syndrome. In addition, the JIA sub-type and history of disease activity and medication were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Class II skeletal pattern, TMJ signs and symptoms, use of systemic corticosteroids. RESULTS: The mean ANB values were 4.2 degrees (SD = 2.9 degrees) in the oligoarticular group and 5.1 degrees (SD = 3.8 degrees) in the polyarticular group. Just under one-third of children had a moderate or severe class II skeletal pattern and a further quarter of children had a mild class II skeletal pattern. Clinical signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint pain dysfunction syndrome were low (<20%), except for crepitus and click which affected between 24 and 40% of JIA children. Radiographically, 57% of oligoarticular and 77% of polyarticular cases exhibited condylar erosion. Use of systemic corticosteroids varied between centres, but overall, was prescribed more in polyarticular cases (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Just under one-third of oligoarticular and polyarticular JIA patients exhibited a moderate or severe class II skeletal pattern. It is, therefore, likely that any future clinical trial to investigate the effect of functional appliance treatment in JIA patients, will need multicentre co-operation to fulfil potential sample size requirements. Clinical signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint pain dysfunction syndrome were low except for crepitus and click. However, radiographic evidence of condylar erosion was high particularly in the polyarticular group. Use of systemic corticosteroids was prescribed more in polyarticular cases and this is likely to reflect the severity of the disease.

Index of orthodontic treatment need as a predictor of orthodontic treatment uptake.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) could be weighted by using consumer-based sociodental measures to predict the uptake of orthodontic services. METHODS: The sample consisted of 525 schoolchildren, 11 to 12 years old, from Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. Child-perceived IOTN aesthetic component (AC), examiner IOTN AC and dental health component, and child socioeconomic status (Townsend score) were recorded. Two consumer sociodental measures (utility and oral aesthetic subjective impact scale values) were recorded. Three years later, the proportion of the subjects who had received orthodontic treatment or were on a waiting list for orthodontic treatment was recorded, and the rate of service uptake was determined. RESULTS: Sociodental indicators did not predict uptake of orthodontic services. A child with higher normative clinical treatment need was 3 times more likely to receive orthodontic treatment than a child with low clinical need (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Consumer-based sociodental information does not predict future use of orthodontic services. Factors such as clinical IOTN and child-perceived IOTN AC will adequately predict use of orthodontic services.