Cochrane · intervention · CD004485
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands
Millett, DT, Glenny, AM, Mattick, RCR, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
2
Included studies
8
as reported
No studies 2 · 20%Ungraded 8 · 80%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Any patient with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with bands attached to molars; excluded: cleft lip/palate (higher molar crossbite prevalence affecting band failure and survival) and other craniofacial syndromes | Eight included trials (5 RCTs, 3 CCTs), all of split-mouth design. All participants required fixed appliance therapy. Gender stated in 4 trials; age reported in 3 (males mean 19.1 (SD 3.7) years and females 17.8 (SD 3.0) years; 13 to 19 years; mean 15.23 (SD 3.41) years) |
| Intervention | Adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth (bracket adhesives excluded). Six types: zinc silicophosphate, zinc phosphate, zinc polycarboxylate, conventional glass ionomer, polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer), resin-modified glass ionomer | Zinc phosphate cement (n=4); Glass ionomer cement (n=6); Polyacid-modified composite resin/compomer (n=3); Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (n=2); Glass phosphonate (n=1) |
| Comparison | Any other of the six adhesive types (chemical- vs light-cured comparisons where possible) | Zinc phosphate cement (n=4); Glass ionomer cement (n=6); Polyacid-modified composite resin/compomer (n=3); Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (n=2); Glass phosphonate (n=1) |
| Outcomes | Band adhesive failure rate (whether the band stays cemented; or annualised failure rate) [primary]; decalcification/decay around bands (presence/absence; size/area if available) [primary]; adverse events; damage to teeth on removal; length of treatment; treatment cost; time to replace bands | Band failure (n=8); Decalcification (n=4); Taste preference (n=2) |
| Study designs | Randomised and controlled clinical trials, including split-mouth design | Randomised controlled trials (n=5); Controlled clinical trials (n=3); all split-mouth design |
| Timing | Patients followed at least 6 months (studies with less than 6 months follow-up excluded) | Approximately 12 months; only two trials clearly followed patients to the end of treatment, one unclear |
Search date: 2016-06. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE Ovid; EMBASE Ovid
Questions and results
Show all 4 versionsChemically cured zinc phosphate cement vs Chemically cured glass ionomer cement
Population: Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Band failure (band adhesive loosening) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | No meta-analysis (band failure not reported on a per-patient basis). Durning 1989 (69 participants): at ~12 months failure rate 34.78% (zinc phosphate) vs 26% (glass ionomer), P > 0.05; mean survival time 470.9 vs… | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Decalcification (demineralisation around bands) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | No statistical analysis. Kvam 1983 (28 participants): 4 teeth affected by small decalcification spots (reversed by polishing and fluoride), all with the zinc phosphate cement. Galarraga 2003 (40 participants): 8… | 2 studies · 68 participants | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)
Population: Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Decalcification (enamel white spot lesions) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants): comparison of change in mean enamel white spot lesion scores during treatment showed no statistically significant difference between chemically cured glass ionomer and light-cured… | 1 study · 98 participants | Ungraded |
Taste preference (patient preference) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | Williams 2005 (30 participants): a statistically significant difference in patient taste preference in favour of the glass ionomer over the light-cured composite resin (compomer). | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Band failure (band adhesive loosening) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate
Population: Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Taste preference (patient preference) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | Clark 2003: no statistically significant difference in taste between the two cements (glass ionomer vs glass phosphonate); authors caution the finding because both cements were used at the same sitting, so the taste of… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Band failure (band adhesive loosening) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)
Population: Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Band failure (band adhesive loosening) Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) | 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 study | Ungraded |
Zinc silicophosphate cement vs Any other orthodontic band adhesive
Population: Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | No trial was identified that examined the effectiveness of zinc silicophosphate cement. | 0 studies | No studies |
Zinc polycarboxylate cement vs Any other orthodontic band adhesive
Population: Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial syndromes excluded)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | No trial was identified that examined the effectiveness of zinc polycarboxylate cement. | 0 studies | No studies |