Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. :Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. Data collection and analysis: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

A study of primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations in children participating in an undergraduate teaching programme at Cork University Dental School and Hospital, Ireland

Aim: To study the outcomes for restored primary molar teeth; to examine outcomes in relation to tooth type involved, intracoronal restoration complexity and to the material used. Materials and methods: Design: Retrospective study of primary molar teeth restored by intracoronal restorations. A series of restored primary molar teeth for children aged 6-12 years was studied. The principal outcome measure was failure of initial restoration (re-restoration or extraction). Three hundred patient records were studied to include three equal groups of primary molar teeth restored with amalgam, composite or glass ionomer, respectively. Restorative materials, the restoration type, simple (single surface) or complex (multi-surface) restoration, and tooth notation were recorded. Subsequent interventions were examined. Data were coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel database and analysis undertaken using SPSS v.18. Statistical differences were tested using the c2 test of statistical significance. Results: Of the 300 teeth studied, 61 restoration failures were recorded with 11 of those extracted. No significant differences were found between outcomes for upper first, upper second, lower first or lower second primary molars. Outcomes for simple primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations were significantly better than those for complex intracoronal restorations (P = 0.042). Teeth originally restored with amalgam accounted for 19.7% of the 61 failures, composite for 29.5%, while teeth restored with glass ionomer represented 50.8% of all restoration failures. The differences were significant (P = 0.012). Conclusions: The majority (79.7%) of the 300 restored primary teeth studied were successful, and 3.7% teeth were extracted. Restorations involving more than one surface had almost twice the failure rate of single surface restorations. The difference was significant. Significant differences in failure rates for the three dental materials studied were recorded. Amalgam had the lowest failure rate while the failure rate with glass ionomer was the highest.