-
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022Since fixed orthodontic treatment is widely spread and one of its inconveniences is bracket removal, as this affects enamel integrity as well as being a cause of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Since fixed orthodontic treatment is widely spread and one of its inconveniences is bracket removal, as this affects enamel integrity as well as being a cause of discomfort to the patient, studies have searched for the most adequate bracket removal technique, many of them focusing on using laser-technology.
METHODS
Our review focused on articles published investigating methods of orthodontic bracket removal using laser technology in the last 30 years.
RESULTS
19 relevant studies were taken into consideration after a thorough selection. Different types of laser devices, with specific settings and various testing conditions were tested and the investigators presented their pertinent conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Most studies were performed using ceramic brackets and the best results in terms of prevention of enamel loss, temperature stability for the tooth as well as reduced chair time were obtained with Er:YAG lasers.
PubMed: 35057264
DOI: 10.3390/ma15020548 -
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2018To evaluate the incidence of orthodontic brackets detachment during orthodontic treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the incidence of orthodontic brackets detachment during orthodontic treatment.
METHODS
Using electronic databases; eligible studies up to January 2018 were retrieved, independently reviewed, and screened. The Coleman Methodology Scoring System (CMS) and Cochrane Collaboration's tool were used to assess quality and risk of bias in the included studies.
RESULTS
Of the seventeen studies included in the final synthesis, thirteen were categorized as randomized clinical trials (RCTs), one prospective cohort and retrospective survey each, whereas two studies could not be categorized. The number of patients in the selected studies ranged between 19 and 153; the mean age was between 10.5 to 38.7 years, and male to female ratio was 353:495. Almost all studies had a high risk of bias, and more than half of the studies had CMS score of 70 or above. The numbers of brackets examined in the studies ranged between 361 and 3336. The incidence of brackets detachment ranged from 0.6 to 28.3%.
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of brackets detachment during orthodontic treatment is high.
PubMed: 30034451
DOI: 10.12669/pjms.343.15012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Adhesives; Adolescent; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries; Dental Cements; Female; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Male; Molar; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Resin Cements; Young Adult; Zinc Phosphate Cement
PubMed: 27779317
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub4 -
Journal of Orthodontic Science 2022This systematic review was aimed to test the null hypothesis that coating of orthodontic wires with nanoparticles does not affect the frictional properties at... (Review)
Review
This systematic review was aimed to test the null hypothesis that coating of orthodontic wires with nanoparticles does not affect the frictional properties at bracket--wire interface. Electronic database searches were performed up to September 2020. studies were considered for reviewing process. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment was performed during reviewing process. Only qualitative analyses of included literature were done due to the presence of heterogeneity among the studies. Out of 1,068 retrieved records, nine studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and included in this review. Studies were assessed at low risk to high risk of bias according to certain parameters. Wide variety of nanoparticles were used for surface coating of orthodontic wires of variable sizes, shapes, and materials like stainless steel, NiTi, and TMA and placed into the slots of different types of orthodontic brackets to evaluate the alteration in frictional and other mechanical properties. Most of the studies clearly indicate that coating with nanoparticles decreases the friction between wire and bracket interface under specified conditions. Furthermore, among the nine included studies, only two considered evaluation of effect of coated brackets on frictional and other mechanical properties and results were heterogeneous. The null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that the wires coated with nanoparticles might offer a novel opportunity to substantially reduce frictional resistance at bracket--wire interface during tooth movement. Further studies are necessary to strengthen the evidence regarding effect of coated brackets on frictional properties.
PubMed: 35754415
DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_152_21 -
Journal of Functional Biomaterials May 2024The objective of this study was to explore the effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on enamel structure by assessing microfractures, surface roughness, and... (Review)
Review
AIM
The objective of this study was to explore the effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on enamel structure by assessing microfractures, surface roughness, and alterations in color.
METHODS
This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search of online databases was conducted using the keywords 'enamel' AND 'orthodontic debonding'. Eligibility criteria included both in vivo and ex vivo clinical trials conducted on human teeth.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 14 relevant papers were analyzed. Various instruments and techniques were utilized across different studies to assess surface roughness, color change, and surface fractures.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study suggest that ceramic brackets may lead to an increase in enamel fractures, particularly during bracket removal. The surface roughness of enamel exhibits variability depending on the adhesive substance and polishing methods used post-removal. Fixed orthodontic appliances could induce changes in enamel color, which may be alleviated by the use of nano-hydroxyapatite or specific polishing techniques. Further research is necessary to identify effective strategies for managing these color changes and improving the overall outcomes of fixed orthodontic treatment.
PubMed: 38786634
DOI: 10.3390/jfb15050123 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... May 2019To evaluate the bracket-wire friction force after clinical use. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the bracket-wire friction force after clinical use.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search of several electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs and Google Scholar) without limitations regarding publication year or language, was performed. studies analyzing the changes in friction force of orthodontic brackets before/after their clinical use were considered. Risk of Bias was assessed with Downs and Black checklist. All methodological features that could interfere in the results were specifically described.
RESULTS
Seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All 7 studies reported at least two groups (before and after clinical use). Friction force increased after intraoral aging in most of the studies. However, there is lack of good quality evidence in this research area.
CONCLUSIONS
Brackets present increased surface roughness after clinical use, and consequently increased coefficient of friction (COF) and Friction Force. Further studies are necessary to obtain more reliable results. Friction, orthodontic brackets, systematic review.
PubMed: 31275523
DOI: 10.4317/jced.55676 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Oct 2016To assess the available evidence on the effectiveness of lingual orthodontic treatment and related clinical parameters through a systematic review of relevant studies. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the available evidence on the effectiveness of lingual orthodontic treatment and related clinical parameters through a systematic review of relevant studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eligible clinical studies published from January 2000 to March 2015 were identified through electronic (five major databases) and hand searches. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for prospective studies and a specially designed tool for retrospective studies.
RESULTS
From the 3734 articles identified by the search, after application of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 papers were included in the study. Eleven studies were retrospective, four were prospective, and only one was a RCT. In detail, six studies evaluated differences of the treatment outcome from the pre-treatment set-up prediction, two studies evaluated the effect of treatment on periodontal and microbial parameters, and 10 studies assessed various clinical treatment related parameters. Despite several promising findings, the quality of evidence supporting them was found to be low in most cases.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review showed encouraging results on the clinical outcome of lingual orthodontic treatment, especially in regards to the achievement of individualized treatment goals and the reduction of decalcifications on the bonded surfaces of the teeth. However, additional well-designed prospective clinical trials with larger samples are needed to confirm those findings. Several aspects of lingual orthodontic treatment were difficult to be conclusively evaluated due to the study design, the heterogeneity, the small samples sizes, and the high risk of bias seen in the majority of the included studies.
Topics: Bias; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Brackets; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Tongue; Tooth Movement Techniques; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26359019
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv061 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Jan 2017To evaluate the torque expression of self ligating (SL) orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets and the torque expression in active and passive SL... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the torque expression of self ligating (SL) orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets and the torque expression in active and passive SL brackets.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Our systematic search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, and key journals and review articles; the date of the last search was April 4th 2016. We graded the methodological quality of the studies by means of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, developed for the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP).
RESULTS
In total, 87 studies were identified for screening, and 9 studies were eligible. The quality assessment rated one of the study as being of strong quality, 7 (77.78%) of these studies as being of moderate quality. Three out of 7 studies which compared SL and conventionally ligated brackets showed, conventionally ligated brackets with highest torque expression compared to SL brackets. Badawi showed active SL brackets with highest torque expression compared to passive SL brackets. Major and Brauchli showed no significant differences in torque expression of active and passive SL brackets.
CONCLUSIONS
Conventionally ligated brackets presented with highest torque expression compared to SL brackets. Minor difference was recorded in a torque expression of active and passive SL brackets. Systematic review, self ligation, torque expression, conventional ligation.
PubMed: 28149476
DOI: 10.4317/jced.53187 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2023Bracket failure increases the treatment time of orthodontic therapy and burdens patients with unnecessary costs, increased chair time, and possible new appointments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bracket failure increases the treatment time of orthodontic therapy and burdens patients with unnecessary costs, increased chair time, and possible new appointments.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the bond failures of different orthodontic materials based on the results of available clinical studies.
SEARCH METHODS
A systematic search of clinical trials was performed in the Cochrane, Embase, and Pubmed databases with no limitations. The list of investigated techniques contained conventional acid-etch primer (CM-AEP), self-etch primer (SEP), self-cure resin (SCR), and simple or resin-modified glass ionomer (RM-GIC) materials and procedures.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical studies reporting the failure rate of bonded brackets after using direct adhesive techniques on buccal sites of healthy teeth were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Bracket failure rates from eligible studies were extracted by two authors independently. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using the random-effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation.
RESULTS
Thirty-four publications, involving 1221 patients, were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the risk of bracket failures between SEP and CM-AEP. After 6, 12, and 18 months of bonding, the values of RR were 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.61], 1.37 (95% CI, 0.98-1.92), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72-1.20), respectively. At 18 months, bracket failure was 4.9 and 5.2% for SEP and CM-AEP, respectively. Heterogeneity was good or moderate (I2 < 42.2%). The results of RM-GIC at 12 months indicated a 57% lower risk of bracket failure using SCR as compared with RM-GIC (RR: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.61). At 18 months, bracket failures for SCR and RM-GIC were 15.8 and 36.6%, respectively (RR: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.52, I2 = 78.9%), demonstrating three to six times higher failure rate than in the case of etching primer applications.
LIMITATIONS
A major limitation of the present work is that the included clinical trials, with no exceptions, showed variable levels of risk of bias. Another possible problem affecting the outcome is the difference between the clustering effects of the split mouth and the parallel group bracket allocation methods.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results revealed no significant difference between SEP and CM-AEP up to 18 months after application. RM-GIC had much worse failure rates than acid-etching methods; additionally, the superiority of SCR over RM-GIC was evident, indicating strong clinical relevance.
REGISTRATION
Prospero with CRD42020163362.
Topics: Humans; Time Factors; Dental Bonding; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements
PubMed: 36222731
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjac050 -
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2018To assess, by means of a systematic review, the scientific evidence of the influence of 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slots on treatment time, efficiency of space... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess, by means of a systematic review, the scientific evidence of the influence of 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slots on treatment time, efficiency of space closure, efficiency of alignment, quality of orthodontic finishing, level of discomfort, and level of root resorption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, Bireme, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Open Grey, and Google Scholar databases were searched, with no date and language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical trials, using controlled terms related to bracket slots. After the selection and removal of duplicate articles, the risk of bias was assessed, and the data from the included studies were extracted by two independent researchers.
RESULTS
The search yielded 2640 studies. After applying the eligibility criteria, eight articles were fully read and four studies were selected for the qualitative systematic review. No randomized clinical trials assessed the duration of treatment in patients treated with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slots. Due to heterogeneity of the data available, a meta-analysis could not be conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
While most studies indicated a shorter duration of treatment in patients with 0.018-inch bracket slots, no available data confirmed the higher efficiency of one system over the other. The biases in the studies did not allow for a reliable conclusion; therefore, new studies with a better methodologic design are needed.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Time Factors; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 28949767
DOI: 10.2319/031217-185.1