Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42345974
Comparison of Bracket Adhesion Failure Rates with Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Versus Conventional Resin Adhesives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Sevindik Celalettin Noyan, Barmak Abdul Basir, Rossouw Paul Emile, et al. · Dentistry journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/dj14060384
Findings
Population Patients undergoing comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment with bonded metal brackets
1 finding
| Brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | Brackets bonded with conventional resin adhesives (CRA) | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) 6 to 18 months of follow-up · Clinical orthodontic treatment · Overall | OR 1.00 [0.60, 1.67] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias 6 studies · 5563 brackets (2573 RMGIC, 2990 CRA) participants |
Included primary studies 7
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benson 2019 Resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs composite for orthodontic bonding: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. PMID:30591153 | 2019 | 1 other review | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) | not extracted yet |
| Choo 2001 An in vivo investigation into the use of resin-modified glass poly(alkenote) cements as orthodontic bonding agents. PMID:11544790 | 2001 | this review only | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) | not extracted yet |
| Ghoubril 2023 Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT DOI:10.3390/coatings13081447 | 2023 | this review only | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) | not extracted yet |
| Qabool 2024 Comparison of bond failure with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and visible light-cured composite bonding systems in orthodontic… PMID:39364623 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Sawant 2023 Comparative Evaluation Of Bond Failure Rate Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Composite- A… DOI:10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v14i3.882 | 2023 | this review only | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) | not extracted yet |
| Shammaa 1999 Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro… PMID:10515145 | 1999 | this review only | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) | not extracted yet |
| Summers 2004 Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo… PMID:15316475 | 2004 | this review only | Bracket adhesion failure rate (first-time bracket failure) | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of various interventions for the management of white spot lesions associated with fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic… (2026) | 1 | 0.01 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with bonded orthodontic brackets; fully erupted permanent dentition; no upper age limit | Orthodontic patients aged about 11 to 37 years (n=20 to 197 per trial) |
| Intervention | Brackets bonded using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | RMGIC (n=2573 brackets in meta-analysis) |
| Comparison | Brackets bonded with conventional resin adhesives (CRA) | CRA (n=2990 brackets in meta-analysis) |
| Outcomes | Bracket adhesion failure rate | Bracket adhesion failure rate (6 trials pooled; 1 trial reported survival time) |
| Study designs | Parallel-arm or split-mouth RCTs | RCTs (n=7; 5 split-mouth, 2 parallel) |
| Timing | Follow-up period required; no restrictions on duration | 6 to 18 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | yes |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: No · NRSI: N/A | RCT: No · NRSI: N/A | yes |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |