Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 1/2012

01-02-2012 | Review

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

Authors: Steffen Mickenautsch, Veerasamy Yengopal, Avijit Banerjee

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Barry GR (1995) A clinical investigation of the effects of pumice prophylaxis on band and bond failure. Br J Orthod 22:245–248PubMed Barry GR (1995) A clinical investigation of the effects of pumice prophylaxis on band and bond failure. Br J Orthod 22:245–248PubMed
2.
go back to reference Bearn DR, Aird JC, McCabe JF (1995) Ex vivo bond strength of adhesive precoated metallic and ceramic brackets. Br J Orthod 22:233–236PubMed Bearn DR, Aird JC, McCabe JF (1995) Ex vivo bond strength of adhesive precoated metallic and ceramic brackets. Br J Orthod 22:233–236PubMed
3.
go back to reference Bin Abdullah MS, Rock WP (1996) The effect of etch time and debond interval upon the shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod 23:121–124PubMed Bin Abdullah MS, Rock WP (1996) The effect of etch time and debond interval upon the shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod 23:121–124PubMed
4.
go back to reference Ozer M, Arici S (2005) Sandblasted metal brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in vivo. Angle Orthod 75:406–409PubMed Ozer M, Arici S (2005) Sandblasted metal brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in vivo. Angle Orthod 75:406–409PubMed
5.
go back to reference Banerjee A, Paolinelis G, Socker M, Watson TF, McDonald F (2008) An in-vitro investigation of the effectiveness of bioactive glass air-abrasion in the selective removal of orthodontic resin adhesive. Eur J Oral Sci 116:488–492PubMedCrossRef Banerjee A, Paolinelis G, Socker M, Watson TF, McDonald F (2008) An in-vitro investigation of the effectiveness of bioactive glass air-abrasion in the selective removal of orthodontic resin adhesive. Eur J Oral Sci 116:488–492PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hallgren A, Oliveby A, Twetman S (1993) Flouride concentration in plaque adjacent to orthodontic bracket appliances retained with glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 27:51–54PubMedCrossRef Hallgren A, Oliveby A, Twetman S (1993) Flouride concentration in plaque adjacent to orthodontic bracket appliances retained with glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 27:51–54PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Millett DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, Carter NE, Gordon PH (1995) The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod 22:161–169PubMed Millett DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, Carter NE, Gordon PH (1995) The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod 22:161–169PubMed
8.
go back to reference Millett DT, McCabe JF (1996) Orthodontic bonding with glass ionomer cement-a review. Eur J Orthod 18:385–399PubMedCrossRef Millett DT, McCabe JF (1996) Orthodontic bonding with glass ionomer cement-a review. Eur J Orthod 18:385–399PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Silverman E, Cohen M, Demke RS, Silverman M, Linwood NJ (1995) A new light-cured glass ionomer cement that bond brackets to teeth without etching in the presence of saliva. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108:231–236PubMedCrossRef Silverman E, Cohen M, Demke RS, Silverman M, Linwood NJ (1995) A new light-cured glass ionomer cement that bond brackets to teeth without etching in the presence of saliva. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108:231–236PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Miguel JAM, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O (1995) Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107:484–487PubMedCrossRef Miguel JAM, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O (1995) Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107:484–487PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Foley T, Aggarwal M, Hatibovic-Kofman S (2002) A comparison of in vitro enamel demineralisation potential of three orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:576–580CrossRef Foley T, Aggarwal M, Hatibovic-Kofman S (2002) A comparison of in vitro enamel demineralisation potential of three orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:576–580CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick CR, Hickman J, Mandall NA (2007) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD004485PubMed Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick CR, Hickman J, Mandall NA (2007) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD004485PubMed
13.
go back to reference Berger VW (2005) Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomised clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef Berger VW (2005) Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomised clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Berger VW, Alperson SY (2009) A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials 4:79–88PubMedCrossRef Berger VW, Alperson SY (2009) A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials 4:79–88PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bax L, Yu LM, Ikeda N, Tsuruta H, Moons KGM (2006) Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:50PubMedCrossRef Bax L, Yu LM, Ikeda N, Tsuruta H, Moons KGM (2006) Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:50PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634PubMedCrossRef Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Thompson SG (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 309:1351–1355PubMedCrossRef Thompson SG (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 309:1351–1355PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Summers A, Kao E, Gilmore J, Gunel E, Ngan P (2004) Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:200–206PubMedCrossRef Summers A, Kao E, Gilmore J, Gunel E, Ngan P (2004) Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:200–206PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Choo SC, Ireland AJ, Sherriff M (2001) An in vivo investigation into the use of resin-modified glass poly(alkenote) cements as orthodontic bonding agents. Eur J Orthod 23:403–409PubMedCrossRef Choo SC, Ireland AJ, Sherriff M (2001) An in vivo investigation into the use of resin-modified glass poly(alkenote) cements as orthodontic bonding agents. Eur J Orthod 23:403–409PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gaworski M, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE (1999) Decalcification and bond failure: a comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:518–521PubMedCrossRef Gaworski M, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE (1999) Decalcification and bond failure: a comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:518–521PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Fowler PV (1998) A twelve-month clinical trial comparing the bracket failure rates of light-cured resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive and acid-etch chemical-cured composite. Aust Orthod J 15:186–190PubMed Fowler PV (1998) A twelve-month clinical trial comparing the bracket failure rates of light-cured resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive and acid-etch chemical-cured composite. Aust Orthod J 15:186–190PubMed
22.
go back to reference Fricker JP (1998) A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:384–386PubMed Fricker JP (1998) A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:384–386PubMed
23.
go back to reference Wright AB, Lee RT, Lynch E, Young KA (1996) Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110:469–475PubMedCrossRef Wright AB, Lee RT, Lynch E, Young KA (1996) Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110:469–475PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fricker JP (1994) A 12-month clinical evaluation of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 105:502–505PubMedCrossRef Fricker JP (1994) A 12-month clinical evaluation of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 105:502–505PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Oliveira SR, Rosenbach G, Brunhard IH, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O (2004) A clinical study of glass ionomer cement. Eur J Orthod 26:185–189PubMedCrossRef Oliveira SR, Rosenbach G, Brunhard IH, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O (2004) A clinical study of glass ionomer cement. Eur J Orthod 26:185–189PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, Brown C (1999) Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod 69:463–469PubMed Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, Brown C (1999) Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod 69:463–469PubMed
27.
go back to reference Hegarty DJ, Macfarlane TV (2002) In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:496–501PubMedCrossRef Hegarty DJ, Macfarlane TV (2002) In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:496–501PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Ireland AJ, Sherriff M (2002) The effect of pumicing on the in vivo use of resin modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement and a conventional no-mix composite for bonding orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 29:217–220PubMedCrossRef Ireland AJ, Sherriff M (2002) The effect of pumicing on the in vivo use of resin modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement and a conventional no-mix composite for bonding orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 29:217–220PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B (1998) Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 1: wetting with water. Clin Orthod Res 1:29–36PubMed Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B (1998) Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 1: wetting with water. Clin Orthod Res 1:29–36PubMed
30.
go back to reference Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B (1999) 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. Clin Orthod Res 2:186–193PubMed Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B (1999) 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. Clin Orthod Res 2:186–193PubMed
31.
go back to reference The Cochrane Collaboration (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, pp. 97–99 The Cochrane Collaboration (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, pp. 97–99
32.
go back to reference Bax L, Ikeda N, Fukui N, Yaju Y, Tsuruta H, Moons KG (2009) More than numbers: the power of graphs in meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 169:249–255PubMedCrossRef Bax L, Ikeda N, Fukui N, Yaju Y, Tsuruta H, Moons KG (2009) More than numbers: the power of graphs in meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 169:249–255PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H Jr, Kunzler AM (1977) Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 297:1091–1096PubMedCrossRef Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H Jr, Kunzler AM (1977) Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 297:1091–1096PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 7:1–76PubMed Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 7:1–76PubMed
35.
go back to reference Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, Worthington HV (2008) Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001830PubMed Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, Worthington HV (2008) Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001830PubMed
36.
go back to reference Mickenautsch S (2010) Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:53PubMedCrossRef Mickenautsch S (2010) Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:53PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 8:18PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Retention of orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified GIC versus composite resin adhesives—a quantitative systematic review of clinical trials
Authors
Steffen Mickenautsch
Veerasamy Yengopal
Avijit Banerjee
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0626-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Clinical Oral Investigations 1/2012 Go to the issue