Question · asked by 1 review

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin): Band failure (band adhesive loosening)

Population
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
Intervention
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement
Comparison
Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)
Outcome
Band failure (band adhesive loosening)

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)
Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
Fricker 1997 was a three-arm split-mouth trial that included a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer arm (compared with light-cured compomer and chemically cured glass ionomer). Failure rates were reported but not…1 studyGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands
2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
2016-06Not listedNot assessed
How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.