PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12804432

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.

N A Mandall·D T Millett·C R Mattick·J Hickman·T V Macfarlane·H V Worthington
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of most recent searches: August 2002 (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002). 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 reviewers (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 RESULTS: Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cure 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. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review, however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives.

Explore related subjects

Dental CementsHumansOrthodontic BracketsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicJournal ArticleSystematic Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N A Mandall, D T Millett, C R Mattick, J Hickman, T V Macfarlane, H V Worthington. 2003. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002282

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Porosity of different dental luting cements.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare open porosity and pore size distribution of different types of luting cements (zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate produced by Harvard Cement, Great Britain, glass-ionomer product GC Fuji I, GC Corporation, Japan, and Panavia F, resin based composite cement, Kurraray Co. Ltd. Japan) using mercury intrusion porosimetry and use it as an additional parameter for ranging the quality of cements used in prosthetics. METHOD: Samples were hand mixed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and formed in cylindrical test specimens. Density of samples was determined using a pycnometer while porous structure was estimated using high pressure mercury intrusion porosimeter enabling estimation of pore diameters in interval 7.5-15,000 nm. RESULTS: The polycarboxylate cement posses the highest porosity and specific pore volume among investigated cements. By comparison of the results obtained for zinc phosphate and glass-ionomer cement, it can be observed that according to some textural properties zinc phosphate cement is better choice (smaller specific pore volume and absence of macropores larger than 1 microm) while according to other textural properties the glass-ionomer has advantage (smaller porosity). The resin based composite cement poses the most desired porous structure for prosthetic application among the investigated cements (the lowest porosity and specific pore volume and all identified pores are smaller than 20 nm). SIGNIFICANCE: Based on results of this study, it is possible to estimate the efficiency of luting cements to protect the interior of tooth from penetration of oral fluids, bacteria and bacterial toxins into unprotected dentine.

Dental Cements↗
PubMed2006

The effect of three different sealers on the radiopacity of root fillings in simulated canals.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of 3 root canal sealers on radiopacity of root fillings in simulated canals by means of direct digital radiography. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty simulated root canals in transparent acrylic blocks were prepared with a 4% tapered, size 25 instrument. A single 4% tapered, size 25 gutta-percha cone was inserted into each canal. Standardized images of the blocks with an aluminum step-wedge were obtained by using Digora storage phosphor plates. Then, 3 root canal sealers (Roeko, Diaket, Pulpdent) were mixed according to the manufacturers' instructions. The gutta-percha cones were completely coated with one of the sealers and placed in the identical canal to the full working length. The images of the blocks were reobtained after sealer application. The mean gray values (MGVs) of root fillings were measured with or without the sealer at 3 different levels (1 mm, 6 mm, and 11 mm from apex) by using the Image Tool program. Each MGV measurement was then converted to its aluminum equivalent by means of the step-wedge values. A paired t test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: RoekoSeal caused a significant decrease in the radiopacity of the root fillings at the 1-mm level (P < 0.01). Diaket and Pulp Canal Sealer (PCS) increased the radiopacity of the fillings at all levels significantly (P < 0.01) except 6- and 11-mm levels of the Diaket specimens (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The type and the thickness of root canal sealers can influence the radiopacity of the root fillings.

Dental Cements↗
PubMed2006

Ex vivo study of the efficacy of H-files and rotary Ni-Ti instruments to remove gutta-percha and four types of sealer.

AIM: To compare the efficacy of ProFile rotary Nickel-Titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments and Hedstroem-files (H-files) combined with Gates-Glidden (GG) drills during removal of gutta-percha root fillings used in combination with one of the four representative sealers. METHODOLOGY: Forty-eight single-rooted human teeth, with fully formed apices and straight root canals were used. The root canals were accessed and instrumented using a stepback technique with H-files. They were randomly assigned to four groups and subsequently filled with a combination of lateral and vertical condensation of gutta-percha and one of the following sealers: Roth 811, AH26, Endion and Roekoseal. The root fillings were removed 1 year later, using either H-files in combination with GG drills or the ProFile Ni-Ti system. Teeth were then grooved longitudinally and split. The amount of gutta-percha and sealer remaining on the root canal walls was traced and scored visually with the aid of a stereomicroscope. The scores were analysed and statistically compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test between the ProFile and H-file groups, as well as among the four sealer subgroups. Two samples from each group were studied under the scanning electron microscope to enhance inspection of canal walls and remaining material. RESULTS: Sealer remnants were observed with both techniques mainly in the middle and apical third of the root canal. The ProFile system and the H-files were associated with similar amounts of remaining filling material (P > 0.05). In the cervical third of the root canal all sealer remnants were removed with both techniques. In the middle and apical third AH26 was associated with a statistically significant greater quantity of remnants on the root canal walls with both removal techniques (P < 0.05). Endion, Roth 811 and Roekoseal were associated with approximately the same amount of filling material in the middle third of the root canal (P > 0.05), whereas in the apical third Endion was associated with significantly more remnants of filling material than the other two sealers with either ProFile or H-files (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the methods used for the removal of root fillings was totally effective, especially in the apical third of the root canal.

Dental Cements↗