Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Adhésifs utilisés pour les tubes molaires collés pendant un traitement avec un appareil fixe

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Ir a:

Banks 2007a {published data only}

Banks P, Macfarlane TV. Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Orthodontics 2007;34(2):128‐36. CENTRAL

Nazir 2011 {published and unpublished data}

Nazir M, Walsh T, Mandall NA, Matthew S, Fox D. Banding versus bonding of first permanent molars: a multi‐centre randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthodontics 2011;38(2):81‐9. [DOI: 10.1179/14653121141308]CENTRAL

Additional references

Ir a:

Aljubouri 2004

Aljubouri YD, Millett DT, Gilmour WH. Six and 12 months' evaluation of a self‐etching primer versus two‐stage etch and prime for orthodontic bonding: a randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Orthodontics 2004;26(6):565‐71.

Banks 2007

Banks P, Thiruvenkatachari B. Long‐term evaluation of bracket failure with a self‐etching primer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthodontics 2007;34(4):243‐51.

Benson 2005

Benson PE, Shah AA, Millett DT, Dyer F, Parkin N, Vine RS. Fluorides, orthodontics and demineralization: a systematic review. Journal of Orthodontics 2005;32(2):102‐14.

Chestnutt 2006

Chestnutt IG, Burden DJ, Steele JG, Pitts NB, Nuttall NM, Morris AJ. The orthodontic condition of children in the United Kingdom, 2003. British Dental Journal 2006;200(11):609‐12.

Deans 2009

Deans J, Playle R, Durning P, Richmond S. An exploratory study of the cost‐effectiveness of orthodontic care in seven European countries. European Journal of Orthodontics 2009;31(1):90‐4.

Geiger 1983

Geiger AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ. Bond failure rates of facial and lingual attachments. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1983;17(3):165‐9.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Hodges 2001

Hodges SJ, Gilthorpe MS, Hunt NP. The effect of micro‐etching on the retention of orthodontic molar bands: a clinical trial. European Journal of Orthodontics 2001;23(1):91‐7.

Johnston 1998

Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Hussey DL, Mitchell CA. Bonding to molars: the effect of etch time (an in vitro study). European Journal of Orthodontics 1998;20(2):195‐9.

Keim 2008a

Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2008;42(11):625‐40.

Keim 2008b

Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 2: breakdown of selected variables. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2008;42(12):699‐710.

Knoll 1986

Knoll M, Gwinnett AJ, Wolff MS. Shear strength of brackets bonded to anterior and posterior teeth. American Journal of Orthodontics 1986;89(6):476‐9.

Kumar 2006

Kumar S, Williams AC, Sandy JR. Orthognathic treatment: how much does it cost?. European Journal of Orthodontics 2006;28(6):520‐8.

Mandall 2002

Mandall NA, Millett DT, Mattick CR, Hickman J, Worthington HV, Macfarlane TV. Orthodontic adhesives: a systematic review. Journal of Orthodontics 2002;29(3):205‐10.

Mandall 2003

Mandall NA, Hickman J, Macfarlane TV, Mattick RCR, Millett DT, Worthington HV. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002282]

Manzanera 2009

Manzanera D, Monteil‐Company JM, Almerich‐Silla JM, Gandia JL. Orthodontic treatment need in Spanish schoolchildren: an epidemiological study using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need. European Journal of Orthodontics 2009;31(2):180‐3.

Marques 2007

Marques CR, Couto GB, Orestes Cardoso S. Assessment of orthodontic treatment needs in Brazilian schoolchildren according to the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI). Community Dental Health 2007;24(3):145‐8.

Mattick 2000

Mattick CR, Hobson RS. A comparative micro‐topographic study off the buccal enamel of different tooth types. Journal of Orthodontics 2000;27(2):143‐8.

McCabe 1998

McCabe JF. Resin‐modified glass‐ionomers. Biomaterials 1998;19(6):521‐7.

Millett 1994

Millett DT, Gordon PH. A 5‐year clinical review of bond failure with a no‐mix adhesive (Right on). European Journal of Orthodontics 1994;16(3):203‐11.

Millett 1995

Millett DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, Carter NE, Gordon PH. The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. British Journal of Orthodontics 1995;22(2):161‐9.

Millett 1996

Millett DT, McCabe. Orthodontic bonding with glass ionomer cements: a review. European Journal of Orthodontics 1996;18(4):385‐99.

Millett 1999

Millett DT, Hallgren A, Fornell AC, Robertson M. Bonded molar tubes: a retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999;115(6):667‐74.

Millett 2001

Millett DT, Letters S, Roger E, Cummings A, Love J. Bonded molar tubes: an in vitro evaluation. Angle Orthodontist 2001;71(5):380‐5.

Millett 2007

Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick RCR, Hickman J, Mandall NA. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub3]

Millett 2009

Millett D, Mandall N, Hickman J, Mattick R, Glenny AM. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. A systematic review. Angle Orthodontist 2009;79(1):193‐9.

O'Brien 1993

O'Brien KD, Shaw WC, Roberts CT. The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. British Journal of Orthodontics 1993;20(1):25‐35.

Pandis 2005

Pandis N, Christensen L, Eliades T. Long‐term clinical failure rate of molar tubes with a self‐etching primer. Angle Orthodontist 2005;75(6):1000‐2.

Pandis 2006

Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. A comparative assessment of the failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self‐etching primer and conventional acid‐etching. World Journal of Orthodontics 2006;7(1):41‐4.

Panula 2002

Panula K, Keski‐Nisula L, Keski‐Nisula K, Oikarinen K, Keski‐Nisula S. Costs of surgical‐orthodontic treatment in community hospital care: an analysis of the different phases of treatment. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 2002;17(4):297‐306.

Pietila 1998

Pietila T, Sintonen H, Pietila I, Widstrom E, Varrela J, Alanen P. Cost and productivity analysis of orthodontic care in Finland. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 1998;26(4):283‐8.

Richmond 1993

Richmond S, Shaw WC, Stephens CD, Webb WG, Roberts CT, Andrews M. Orthodontics in the general dental service of England and Wales: a critical assessment of standards. British Dental Journal 1993;174(9):315‐29.

Stirrups 1991

Stirrups DR. A comparative clinical trial of a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. British Journal of Orthodontics 1991;18(1):15‐20.

Van Wyk 2005

Van Wyk PJ, Drummond RJ. Orthodontic status and treatment need of 12‐year‐old children in South Africa using the Dental Aesthetic Index. Journal of the South African Dental Association 2005;60(8):334‐6, 338.

References to other published versions of this review

Ir a:

Millett 2011

Millett DT, Mandall NA, Mattick RCR, Hickman J, Glenny AM. Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Banks 2007a

Methods

RCT, parallel group.

Multicentre: 2 UK hospital orthodontic clinics.

Follow‐up: end or discontinuation of treatment.

Participants

110 hospital waiting list patients needing (with no previous history of) fixed appliances.

Age: 9 to 33 years.

Duration of treatment: 7 months to 41 months.

Interventions

Group 1. Single first molar tubes bonded with a no‐mix chemically cured composite (Rely‐A‐Bond) after a 30 second etch (55 participants; 181 molar tubes).

Group 2. Non‐sandblasted bands cemented with conventional glass ionomer cement (Intact) (55 participants; 186 bands).

All participants received similar straight wire mechanics and archwire sequences.

Outcomes

First time failure (detachment or loosening of the attachment). The primary outcome was attachment failure (tooth level) and secondary outcome the number of failures per patient (participant level).

Time to failure.

Adhesive Remnant Index.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random number tables".

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Each operator enrolled participants and assigned them to their group using their sealed [opaque] envelopes, which blinded the operator and participant to the assignment before enrolment".

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: all participants accounted for.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Comment: all relevant outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Comment: no other bias evident.
Nazir 2011

Methods

RCT, parallel group.

Multicentre: 3 UK orthodontic clinics.

Follow‐up: end of treatment.

Participants

80 patients starting upper and lower fixed appliance (pre‐adjusted edgewise) treatment.

Age: 10 to 18 years.

Duration of treatment: unclear.

Interventions

Group 1. Tubes bonded with light‐cured composite (3M Unitek Transbond XT) to all 4 first permanent molar teeth for each participant (38 participants analysed; 152 tubes).

Group 2. Bands cemented with glass ionomer (3M ESPE Ketac‐Cem) to all 4 first permanent molar teeth for each participant (38 participants analysed; 152 bands).

Outcomes

First time failure.

Decalcification.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random number tables".

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "allocations were concealed in envelopes marked with each subject's identification number and held in a central place. The operator and patient remained blind to the attachment type until after the consent and registration procedures".

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: all participants accounted for (80 randomised; 76 analysed for failure; 74 analysed for decalcification).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Comment: all relevant outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Comment: no other bias evident.

RCT = randomised controlled trial.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Molar tubes versus molar bands

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Failure at tooth level Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.92 [1.80, 4.72]
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 1 Failure at tooth level.

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 1 Failure at tooth level.

2 Failure at participant level Show forest plot

2

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.30 [1.56, 3.41]
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 2 Failure at participant level.

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 2 Failure at participant level.

3 Decalcification (participant level) Show forest plot

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.85 [1.22, 2.79]
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 3 Decalcification (participant level).

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 3 Decalcification (participant level).

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 1 Failure at tooth level.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 1 Failure at tooth level.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 2 Failure at participant level.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 2 Failure at participant level.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 3 Decalcification (participant level).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 3 Decalcification (participant level).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Comparison 1. Molar tubes versus molar bands

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Failure at tooth level Show forest plot

2

Hazard Ratio (Fixed, 95% CI)

2.92 [1.80, 4.72]

2 Failure at participant level Show forest plot

2

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.30 [1.56, 3.41]

3 Decalcification (participant level) Show forest plot

1

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.85 [1.22, 2.79]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Molar tubes versus molar bands
Ir a la tabla de la revisión