Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets

Pretreatment of enamel with Riboflavin activated photodynamic therapy and Er, Cr: YSGG laser for bonding of orthodontic bracket with adhesive modified with cerium oxide nanoparticles

AIM

To assess the degree of conversion (DC) and shear bond strength (SBS) of experimental adhesive (EA) infused with and without 1 % Cerium oxide (CeO₂)-NPs on metallic bracket bonded to enamel conditioned with three different pretreatment regimes PDT-activated (Riboflavin) RF, ECY (Er, Cr: YSGG), and Phosphoric acid (PA).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

EA and EA modified with 1 % CeO₂-NPs were prepared. Characterization of CeO2NPs was assessed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Seventy-two premolars extracted due to periodontal or orthodontic reasons were disinfected. Samples were mounted and allocated into three groups according to enamel surface treatment before bracket bonding. Samples in Group 1 were pretreated with Traditional 37 % PA-gel; Specimens in Group 2 surface treated with RF-activated PDT, and samples in Group 3 were conditioned using ECY. Brackets were placed on conditioned surfaces and samples were aged and underwent SBS testing using UTM. ARI index was used to assess bond failure. DC was evaluated for both adhesives using FTIR. ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test were used to compare the means and standard deviation (SD) of SBS and DC in different experimental groups.

RESULTS

Enamel conditioned with PA and RF activated by PDT demonstrated comparable bond values with 1 % CeO2 infused in EA and EA (p>0.05).ARI analysis shows that enamel conditioned with PA and RF activated by PDT showed the majority of failure types between 1 and 2 irrespective of the type of adhesive. DC value in EA (73.28±8.37) was the highest and comparable to 1 % CeO2 infused in EA (66.48±6.81) CONCLUSION: RF-activated PDT can be used alternatively to 37 % PA for enamel conditioning when bonding metallic brackets. Infiltration of 1 % CeO2 NPs in EA improves SBS irrespective of the type of enamel conditioning. Infusion of 1 % CeO2 NPs in EA demonstrates no significant difference in DC compared to EA.

Enhancing Orthodontic Renewal and Retention Techniques: A Systematic Review

Orthodontists have a variety of options available for retainers. Research in Orthodontics focuses on assessing outcomes important to clinicians; however, there is inconsistency in how these outcomes are selected and evaluated. This review sought to assess the effects of different orthodontic retainers on patients' quality of life (QoL). Various approaches were employed in this systematic review, and a thorough search was conducted across six databases. The review involved a comprehensive evaluation of six included studies, highlighting changes in dental structure post-treatment, emphasizing the role of extraction procedures and the quality of debonding in improving retention. The study identified key outcomes for orthodontic clinical trials, highlighting orthodontists' preferences for specific retainer types. Moreover, it discussed the impact of sociocultural influences on retention care. Involving patients actively in discussions about whether to end or extend the retention phase was deemed essential. Noteworthy improvements in occlusal outcomes were linked to extraction treatments. Gender and malocclusion severity influenced QoL before and after orthodontic treatment. The degree of improvement observed in the Class III malocclusion group was comparatively lower than that in the Class I and Class II groups. Orthodontic treatment was found to yield favorable psychological outcomes, as evidenced by notable enhancements in self-esteem and social engagement among individuals. Fixed appliances were shown to negatively affect oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), particularly for those with aesthetic and functional concerns. A consensus has been reached on the essential themes and outcomes that should be incorporated in clinical trials related to orthodontic retention for non-cleft and non-surgical cases.

The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study

AIM

To evaluate the effect of three different reconditioning techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five orthodontic brackets were bonded to human premolar teeth using Transbond™ XT. After debonding, the samples were randomly assigned into equal groups to assess three techniques for the removal of residual adhesive from bracket bases: in Group A, each bracket base was sandblasted with aluminum oxide; in Group B₁, each base was cleaned superficially with a greenstone bur; and in Group B₂, the bases were thoroughly abraded with a greenstone bur. Subsequently, brackets were rebonded and the SBS and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), plus Tukey and Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc tests (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

The average SBSs were: Group A, 11.75 (±4.83) MPa; Group B₁, 8.22 (±4.01) MPa; and Group B₂, 7.54 (±2.85) MPa. No statistically significant differences in SBS were found between Groups A and B₁(P = 0.051) and Groups B₁ and B₂(P = 0.885), but there was a significant difference between Groups A and B₂(P = 0.016). Regarding ARI scores, there were statistically significant differences between Groups A and B₂(P < 0.001) and between B₁ and B₂(P = 0.014), but not between Groups A and B₁(P = 0.068).

CONCLUSION

All reconditioning methods were found to have a positive effect, but the sandblasting technique performed best. Brackets reconditioned by sandblasting and superficial grinding mainly showed mixed-type failure, while in samples thoroughly reconditioned by greenstone bur, bonding failure occurred predominantly at the adhesive/bracket interface.

Shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel using adhesive systems mixed with TiO2 nanoparticles

INTRODUCTION

It is recently suggested that titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles can be added to bracket luting agents in order to reduce bacterial activity and protect the enamel. However, it is not known if this addition can affect the shear bond strength (SBS) below clinically acceptable levels. Therefore, this study examined this matter within a comprehensive setup.

METHODS

This in vitro experimental study was conducted on 120 extracted human premolars randomly divided into four groups (n=30): in groups 1 and 2, Transbond XT light-cured composite with or without TiO2 was applied on bracket base; in groups 3 and 4, Resilience light-cured composite with or without TiO2 was used. Brackets were bonded to teeth. Specimens in each group (n=30) were divided into three subgroups of 10 each; then incubated at 37°C for one day, one month, or three months. The SBS and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were calculated and compared statistically within groups.

RESULTS

The SBS was not significantly different at one day, one month or three months (p>0.05) but composites without TiO2 had a significantly higher mean SBS than composites containing TiO2 (p<0.001). The SBS of Transbond XT was significantly higher than that of Resilience (p<0.001). No significant differences were noted in ARI scores based on the type of composite or addition of TiO2 (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of TiO2 nanoparticles to Transbond XT decreased its SBS to the level of SBS of Resilience without TiO2; thus, TiO2 nanoparticles may be added to Transbond XT composite for use in the clinical setting.

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.

In vitro bond strength and fatigue stress test evaluation of different adhesive cements used for fixed space maintainer cementation

Objective:

The purposes of this research were to (1) compare the shear-peel bond strength (SPBS) of a band of a fixed space maintainer (SM) cemented with five different adhesive cements; and (2) compare the survival time of bands of SM with each cement type after simulating mechanical fatigue stress.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy-five teeth were used to assess retentive strength and another 50 teeth were used to assess the fatigue survival time. SPBS was determined with a universal testing machine. Fatigue testing was conducted in a ball mill device.

Results:

The mean survival time of bands cemented with R & D series Nova Glass-LC (6.2 h), Transbond Plus (6.7 h), and R & D series Nova Resin (6.8 h) was significantly longer than for bands cemented with Ketac-Cem (5.4 h) and GC Equia (5.2 h) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Although traditional glass ionomer cement (GIC) cement presented higher retentive strength than resin-based cements (resin, resin modified GIC, and compomer cement), resin based cements, especially dual cure resin cement (nova resin cement) and compomer (Transbond Plus), can be expected to have lower failure rates for band cementation than GIC (Ketac-Cem) in the light of the results of the ball mill test.

Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Acid etching of tooth surfaces to promote the bonding of orthodontic attachments to the enamel has been a routine procedure in orthodontic treatment since the 1960s. Various types of orthodontic etchants and etching techniques have been introduced in the past five decades. Although a large amount of information on this topic has been published, there is a significant lack of consensus regarding the clinical effects of different dental etchants and etching techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different dental etchants and different etching techniques for the bonding of fixed orthodontic appliances.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 8 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (to 8 March 2013), EMBASE via OVID (to 8 March 2013), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to 12 March 2011), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 March 2013) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry (to 8 March 2013). A handsearching group updated the handsearching of journals, carried out as part of the Cochrane Worldwide Handsearching Programme, to the most current issue. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different etching materials, or different etching techniques using the same etchants, for the bonding of fixed orthodontic brackets to incisors, canines and premolars in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies independently and in duplicate. We resolved disagreements by discussion among the review team. We contacted the corresponding authors of the included studies to obtain additional information, if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies randomizing 417 participants with 7184 teeth/brackets. We assessed two studies (15%) as being at low risk of bias, 10 studies (77%) as being at high risk of bias and one study (8%) as being at unclear risk of bias. Self etching primers (SEPs) versus conventional etchantsEleven studies compared the effects of SEPs with conventional etchants. Only five of these studies (three of split-mouth design and two of parallel design) reported data at the participant level, with the remaining studies reporting at the tooth level, thus ignoring clustering/the paired nature of the data. A meta-analysis of these five studies, with follow-up ranging from 5 to 37 months, provided low-quality evidence that was insufficient to determine whether or not there is a difference in bond failure rate between SEPs and convention etchants (risk ratio 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.73; 221 participants). The uncertainty in the CI includes both no effect and appreciable benefit and harm. Subgroup analysis did not show a difference between split-mouth and parallel studies.There were no data available to allow assessment of the outcomes: decalcification, participant satisfaction and cost-effectiveness. One study reported decalcification, but only at the tooth level. SEPs versus SEPsTwo studies compared two different SEPs. Both studies reported bond failure rate, with one of the studies also reporting decalcification. However, as both studies reported outcomes only at the tooth level, there were no data available to evaluate the superiority of any of the SEPs over the others investigated with regards to any of the outcomes of this review.We did not find any eligible studies evaluating different etching materials (e.g. phosphoric acid, polyacrylic acid, maleic acid), concentrations or etching times.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude whether or not there is a difference in bond failure rate between SEPs and conventional etching systems when bonding fixed orthodontic appliances over a 5- to 37-month follow-up. Insufficient data were also available to allow any conclusions to be formed regarding the superiority of SEPs or conventional etching for the outcomes: decalcification, participant satisfaction and cost-effectiveness, or regarding the superiority of different etching materials, concentrations or etching times, or of any one SEP over another. Further well-designed RCTs on this topic are needed to provide more evidence in order to answer these clinical questions.

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.

Cochrane systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION

The Cochrane Collaboration is an international scientific not-for-profit organization the purpose of which is to produce and distribute systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials. The aim of this paper is to list the different existing Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of dentofacial orthopedics (DFO) and to analyse their main features.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The choice of Cochrane systematic reviews based on dentofacial orthopedics was made from the exhaustive list published by the Cochrane Oral Health Group.

RESULTS

A total of 12 systematic Cochrane reviews related to dentofacial orthopedics were listed. All concluded on the need to conduct randomized clinical trials using more appropriate methodologies and comprising larger samples. None of these systematic reviews offered clear proof supporting any one form of treatment or treatment modality.

DISCUSSION

Despite the lack of relevant conclusions in the still meagre number of Cochrane systematic reviews related to DFO, it is essential for orthodontists to regularly consult the reviews in the framework of their daily evidence-based orthodontic practice. This is true too for orthodontic researchers as clinical DFO research needs to be extended with the setting up of methodologically unquestionable randomized clinical trials. However, there exist alternatives to randomized clinical trials offering a lower level of proof but which are better suited to the field of dentofacial orthopedics.

A critical evaluation of meta-analyses in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the topics in orthodontics that currently provide the best evidence, as documented by meta-analyses, by critically evaluating and discussing the methodologies used in these studies.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched, and hand searching was also done to identify the corresponding meta-analysis studies dealing with orthodontic-related subjects. In total, 98 studies were retrieved initially. After applying specific inclusion criteria, 16 orthodontic-related articles were identified as meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Many of these 16 articles followed appropriate meta-analytic approaches to quantitatively synthesize data and presented adequately supported evidence. However, the methodologies used in others had weaknesses, limitations, or deficiencies. Consequently, the topics in orthodontics that currently provide the best evidence, as documented by meta-analyses, include issues concerning maxillary protraction treatment, prevention of posterior crossbites, reliability of lateral cephalometric measurements, correlation between anterior tooth injuries and magnitude of overjet, correlation of external apical root resorption with treatment-related factors and type of tooth movement, and prevalence of tooth agenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, for only a few orthodontic topics is there adequately supported evidence. More well-conducted, high-quality studies are needed to produce strong evidence in orthodontics.

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 STRATEGY

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.

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.

Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004)

INTRODUCTION

More systematic reviews related to orthodontic topics are published each year, although little has been done to evaluate their search and selection methodologies.

METHODS

Systematic reviews related to orthodontics published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2004, were searched for their use of multiple electronic databases and secondary searches. The search and selection methods of identified systematic reviews were evaluated against the Cochrane Handbook's guidelines.

RESULTS

Sixteen orthodontic systematic reviews were identified in this period. The percentage of reviews documenting and using each criterion of article searching has changed over the last 5 years, with no recognizable directional trend. On average, most systematic reviews documented their electronic search terms (88%) and inclusion-exclusion criteria (100%), and used secondary searching (75%). Many still failed to search more than MEDLINE (56%), failed to document the database names and search dates (37%), failed to document the search strategy (62%), did not use several reviewers for selecting studies (75%), and did not include all languages (81%).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics is still limited, with key methodological components frequently absent or not appropriately described.