اچینگ مینای دندان برای باندینگ بریسهای ثابت ارتودنسی
Information
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005516.pub2Copy DOI
- Database:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Version published:
-
- 25 November 2013see what's new
- Type:
-
- Intervention
- Stage:
-
- Review
- Cochrane Editorial Group:
-
Cochrane Oral Health Group
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article metrics
Altmetric:
Cited by:
Authors
Contributions of authors
-
Haikun Hu (HKH) and Qingsong Ye (QSY) conceived the review and they proposed this clinical question and registered the title with Cochrane Oral Health.
-
HKH and QSY designed the review.
-
HKH, QSY and Fan Li (FL) carried out data collection for the review.
-
QSY, HKH and FL designed search strategies.
-
HKH, QSY and FL undertook searches.
-
HKH and Chunjie Li (CJL) screened search results.
-
HKH and Philip Riley (PR) organized retrieval of papers.
-
HKH and CJL screened retrieved papers against eligibility criteria.
-
HKH and CJL appraised quality of papers.
-
HKH and CJL extracted data from papers.
-
HKH and CJL wrote to authors of papers for additional information.
-
Shujuan Zou (SJZ) and Jianwei Chen (JWC) provided additional data about papers.
-
CJL, JWC and Jianfeng Sun (JFS) carried out data management for the review.
-
CJL and JFS entered data into RevMan.
-
HKH, QSY and CJL carried out analysis of data.
-
HKH, PR and CJL carried out interpretation of data.
-
QSY and PR provided a methodological perspective.
-
SJZ, QSY and Qiang Xu (QX) provided a clinical perspective.
-
HKH, PR, QSY and CJL wrote the review.
-
QSY, SJZ and Andrew Sandham (AS) provided general advice on the review.
-
QSY, PR, QX and AS revised this review.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Wenzhou Medical University, China.
-
Department of Orthodontics, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
-
West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, China.
-
Chinese EBM/Cochrane Center, China.
-
Taizhou Hospital, Zhejiang, China.
-
Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), UK.
Cochrane Oral Health is supported by the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
-
The University of Manchester, UK.
External sources
-
Cochrane Oral Health Global Alliance, Other.
The production of Cochrane Oral Health reviews has been supported financially by our Global Alliance since 2011 (oralhealth.cochrane.org/partnerships‐alliances). Contributors over the past year have been the American Association of Public Health Dentistry, USA; AS‐Akademie, Germany; the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry, UK; the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, UK; the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, Canada; the Centre for Dental Education and Research at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India; the National Center for Dental Hygiene Research & Practice, USA; New York University College of Dentistry, USA; NHS Education for Scotland, UK; and the Swiss Society for Endodontology, Switzerland.
-
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.
This project was supported by the NIHR, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Oral Health. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the review authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, the NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health
Declarations of interest
None of the review authors have any financial interests that would represent a conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Anne Littlewood (Information Specialist, Cochrane Oral Health) in developing the search strategy and Helen Worthington (Cochrane Oral Health) in editing the review. We are grateful to the authors of some included studies (Banks 2007; Elekdag‐Turk 2008a; Elekdag‐Turk 2008b; Ghiz 2009; Manning 2006; Murfitt 2006) who replied to our emails and provided further information.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2013 Nov 25 | Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces | Review | Haikun Hu, Chunjie Li, Fan Li, Jianwei Chen, Jianfeng Sun, Shujuan Zou, Andrew Sandham, Qiang Xu, Philip Riley, Qingsong Ye | |
| 2005 Oct 19 | Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces | Protocol | Qingsong Ye, Zou Shujuan, Zhang Qifeng, Zhao Zhihe, Shi Zongdao | |
Differences between protocol and review
-
In the section Types of studies, we limited the criteria to only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to improve the quality of this systematic review.
-
The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and CBM were searched electronically, which was not proposed in the protocol.
-
We added an exclusion criterion for studies that compared different dental etchants or different etching techniques but did not report any orthodontic outcomes.
Notes
No update planned. This review has had low usage and is not a priority for updating.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Humans;
PICOs
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Flow diagram of study inclusion.
Comparison 1 Self etching primers versus conventional etchants, Outcome 1 Bond failure rate (5 to 37 months).
| Participants or population: Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets Settings: Clinical (typically university dental clinics) Intervention: Self etching primers (one‐step etchant and primer system) Comparison: Conventional etchants (two‐step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect | No of participants | Quality of the evidence | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Conventional etchants | Self etching primers | |||||
| Bond failure rate (5 to 37 months) | 196 per 1000 | 223 per 1000 | RR 1.14 (0.75 to 1.73) | 221 | ⊕⊕⊝⊝1, 2 | Five more studies, which we were unable to include in the meta‐analysis, reported mixed results (Additional Table 2) |
| Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field | Only one study (Ghiz 2009) assessed this outcome but data were reported at the tooth level rather than at the participant level and therefore was not amenable to analysis using Cochrane methods | |||||
| Participant satisfaction | No studies assessed this outcome | |||||
| Cost of treatment | No studies assessed this outcome | |||||
| Damage to the teeth | No studies assessed this outcome | |||||
| *The assumed risk is the median control group risk across studies. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | ||||||
| 1Two studies at low risk of bias, one at unclear risk, but two with serious risk of selection bias. | ||||||
| SEP no failure | SEP ≥ 1 failure | Conventional no failure | Conventional ≥ 1 failure | Total | |
| 46 | 5 | 41 | 10 | 102 | |
| 27 | 12 | 34 | 5 | 78 | |
| 35 | 2 | 35 | 2 | 74 | |
| 17 | 13 | 19 | 11 | 60 | |
| 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 34 | |
| Total | 132 | 42 | 137 | 37 | 348 |
| The actual total number of participants is 221, rather than 348, as the top three split‐mouth studies included the participants in both intervention groups. SEP = self etching primer. | |||||
| Comparison | Results for bond failure rate (analyzed at tooth level) at 6 to 12 months | |
| Transbond Plus SEP versus conventional | "The 'p' value of .037 indicated that the bond failure rate using Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer was significantly less than the bond failure rate in those quadrants where a 37% phosphoric acid etchant was used" | |
| Transbond Plus SEP versus conventional | "There was no significant difference in terms of bracket failure risk over the 12 months between groups... P = 0.311)" | |
| Ideal 1 SEP versus conventional | Odds ratio at 12 months = 15.1 (95% confidence interval 7.7 to 29.3) for failure of SEP relative to conventional. Recruitment was stopped early due to high failure rate of SEP group | |
| Transbond Plus SEP versus conventional | "The difference between the failure proportions was ‐0.06 with an associated 95% confidence interval of ‐0.121 to 0.001. This study produced weak evidence to suggest that bond failures with a self‐etching primer will be higher than those with conventional etching and priming" | |
| Transbond Plus SEP versus conventional | "Transbond Plus SEP was found to have a significantly higher failure rate than the conventional 37 per cent phosphoric acid and primer (P = 0.001)" | |
| SEP = self etching primer. | ||
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Bond failure rate (5 to 37 months) Show forest plot | 5 | 348 | Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI) | 1.14 [0.75, 1.73] |
| 1.1 Split‐mouth studies | 3 | 254 | Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI) | 1.09 [0.36, 3.25] |
| 1.2 Parallel studies | 2 | 94 | Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI) | 1.14 [0.74, 1.76] |
