Question · asked by 1 review

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC): Bracket (bond) failure

Population
Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth
Intervention
Chemical cured composite
Comparison
Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Outcome
Bracket (bond) failure

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Chemical cured composite vs Conventional (chemical cured) glass ionomer cement
Bracket (bond) failure · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth · To end of appliance treatment
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
The one trial article for this adhesive comparison reported the results of paired t-tests comparing different sides of the mouth. No standard deviations were presented, so we were unable to reproduce the data. The…1 study · 60 participantsGRADE not reported
Chemical cured composite vs Conventional (chemical cured) glass ionomer cement
Bracket (bond) failure · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth · To end of appliance treatment
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets (2003) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD002282, superseded
The one trial article for this adhesive comparison reported the results of paired t-tests comparing different sides of the mouth. No standard deviations were presented, so we were unable to reproduce the data. The…1 study · 60 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets
2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
2017-09Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.