-
Journal of Functional Biomaterials Oct 2023Graphene-based materials have great prospects for application in dentistry and medicine due to their unique properties and biocompatibility with tissues. The literature... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Graphene-based materials have great prospects for application in dentistry and medicine due to their unique properties and biocompatibility with tissues. The literature on the use of graphene oxide in orthodontic treatment was reviewed.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the PRISMA protocol and was conducted by searching the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. The following search criteria were used to review the data on the topic under study: (Graphene oxide) AND (orthodontic) ALL FIELDS. For the Scopus database, results were narrowed to titles, authors, and keywords. A basic search structure was adopted for each database. Initially, a total of 74 articles were found in the considered databases. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review.
RESULTS
Nine studies demonstrated the antibacterial properties of graphene oxide, which can reduce the demineralization of enamel during orthodontic treatment. Seven studies showed that it is biocompatible with oral tissues. Three studies presented that graphene oxide can reduce friction in the arch-bracket system. Two studies showed that it can improve the mechanical properties of orthodontic adhesives by reducing ARI (Adhesive Remnant Index). Three studies demonstrated that the use of graphene oxide in the appropriate concentration can also increase the SBS (shear bond strength) parameter. One research study showed that it can increase corrosion resistance. One research study suggested that it can be used to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement.
CONCLUSION
The studies included in the systematic review showed that graphene oxide has numerous applications in orthodontic treatment due to its properties.
PubMed: 37888164
DOI: 10.3390/jfb14100500 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2023To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients undergoing multi-bracket orthodontic treatment. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CNKI and Grey-literature were searched without restrictions up to January 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I cochrane risk of bias tools. Eight articles, for seven studies, were included in this systematic review, and four split-mouth trials (SMT) were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis found a statistically significant faster bonding time with FFA (mean difference [MD] = -93.85 seconds/quadrant, P = .002, 2 SMT), and no statistically significant difference regarding bracket failure rate at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; P = .93, 3 SMT), adhesive removal time (MD = -18.26 seconds/quadrant, P = .50, 2 SMT), and amount of remnant adhesive (MD = -0.13/bracket, P = .72, 2 SMT) between FFA and CVA. No difference (P > .05, 3 SMT) was found in enamel demineralization and periodontal measurements. CVA showed a statistically significant higher debonding pain score (P = .004, 1 SMT). Both flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets had a similar clinical performance, except for the faster bonding with FFA. Further, well-designed clinical trials are still required.
Topics: Humans; Dental Cements; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Bonding; Dental Debonding; Ceramics; Materials Testing
PubMed: 35506474
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12585 -
Assessment of bond strength studies of the orthodontic bracket-adhesive system: A systematic review.European Journal of Dentistry 2018The aim of this study was to systematically review the available studies measuring the bond strength of orthodontic bracket-adhesive system under different experimental... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to systematically review the available studies measuring the bond strength of orthodontic bracket-adhesive system under different experimental conditions . Literature search was performed in four different databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus using the keywords - bond strength, orthodontic brackets, bracket-adhesive, and . A total of six full-text articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of our study after a careful assessment by the two independent reviewers. Data selection was performed by following PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Five of the selected studies were clinical trials; one study was a randomized clinical trial. From each of the selected articles, the following data were extracted - number of samples, with the type of tooth involved materials under experiment methods of measurement, the time interval between bonding and debonding orthodontic brackets, mode of force application, and the bond strength results with the overall outcome. The methodological quality assessment of each article was done by the modified Downs and Black checklist method. The qualitative analyses were done by two independent reviewers. Conflicting issues were resolved in a consensus meeting by consulting the third reviewer (MKA). Meta-analysis could not be performed due to the lack of homogenous study results. The review reached no real conclusion apart from the lack of efforts to clinically evaluate the bonding efficiency of a wide range of orthodontic bracket-adhesive systems in terms of debonding force compared to laboratory-based and studies.
PubMed: 30369810
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_22_18 -
Progress in Orthodontics Jan 2018The purpose of this systematic review was to identify studies and present the use of miniscrew implants (MIs) as an alternative treatment to mandibular molar uprighting.... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify studies and present the use of miniscrew implants (MIs) as an alternative treatment to mandibular molar uprighting. An electronic search and handsearching were conducted by two independent reviewers to identify relevant articles, published up to January 27, 2017. In order to methodologically assess the eligible studies, a pilot checklist consisting of 22 items was also implemented. After exclusion of all the irrelevant papers, only 17 studies were included, presenting 27 cases of mandibular molar uprighting in all planes using both direct and indirect force traction by MIs. Regarding the quality evaluation, the mean score of the included studies was 13.2, indicating a rather poor methodology implemented in the majority of the included cases. Due to many advantages, MIs provide a unique treatment alternative and constitute a reliable solution for treating tipped or impacted molars. Regarding the force application, a direct method is simpler, as it requires one MI and a single bracket or button, minimizing the patient's discomfort and also reducing chair time compared to more complex indirect anchorage. It also eliminates the possibility of unwanted movement of the anchorage unit, which can occur even with indirect anchorage as a result of technical errors. However, direct anchorage has limitations in cases of lingually tipped or rotated molars because a single force may be insufficient to upright the tooth.
Topics: Bone Screws; Dental Implants; Humans; Mandible; Molar; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 29308540
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-017-0200-2 -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2023Some of the most significant aspects in orthodontics for achieving favorable treatment outcomes include correct bracket positioning and a shorter period to accomplish...
OBJECTIVE
Some of the most significant aspects in orthodontics for achieving favorable treatment outcomes include correct bracket positioning and a shorter period to accomplish bracket bonding. Two different brackets bonding techniques - direct and indirect bonding - are described in the literature. The aim of this review is to evaluate the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of the two techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in a period from January 2013 to April 2023 with English language restriction using the following Boolean keywords: "orthodontic bracket* AND (bonding OR placement)".
RESULTS
A total of 3,820 articles were identified by the electronic search, and after duplicate removal, screening, and eligibility, a total of 11 papers were included for the qualitative analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Indirect bonding is more predictable and precise than direct bonding. Indirect bonding has a greater impact on minimizing bracket placement errors than direct bonding, but it still takes longer to complete than the traditional procedure. However, further studies on the differences between direct and indirect bonding, as well as digital bonding, are needed.
Topics: Humans; Dental Care; Databases, Factual; Object Attachment
PubMed: 37750633
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202309_33565 -
International Orthodontics Sep 2017Over the last few years, the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics has progressed considerably. These systems have been the subject of numerous studies with good... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics has progressed considerably. These systems have been the subject of numerous studies with good levels of evidence making it possible to evaluate their efficacy and efficiency compared to conventional brackets. The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets by means of a systematic review of the scientific literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic study was undertaken in the form of a recent search of the electronic Pubmed database, oriented by the use of several keywords combined by Boolean operators relating to the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets through the study of tooth alignment, space closure, expansion, treatment duration and degree of discomfort. The search was limited to randomized controlled studies, and two independent readers identified studies corresponding to the selection criteria.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The chosen articles comprised 20 randomized controlled trials. The studies analyzed revealed the absence of significant differences between the two types of system on the basis of the clinical criteria adopted, thereby refuting the hypothesis of the superiority of self-ligating brackets over conventional systems.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28778722
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2017.06.009 -
European Journal of Medical Research Nov 2023The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chewing gum on orthodontic pain and to determine the rate of bracket breakage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chewing gum on orthodontic pain and to determine the rate of bracket breakage associated with fixed orthodontic appliances.
METHODS
This review and its reporting were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. Six electronic databases were searched up to March 16, 2023, to identify relevant studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, grey literature resources were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool 2 was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan, and sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis were performed using STATA software. GRADE tool was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies with 2116 participants were ultimately included in this review, and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the blank group, chewing gum had a significant pain relieving effect at all times after fixation of the initial archwire (P ≤ 0.05). No significant difference was found between the chewing gum group and the analgesics group at any timepoints (P > 0.05). Only four studies evaluated the rate of bracket breakage and revealed that chewing gum did not increase the rate of bracket breakage. The sensitivity analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the pooled outcomes after the included studies were removed one at times, and Egger analysis revealed no significant publication bias in included studies (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Chewing gum is a non-invasive, low-cost and convenient method that has a significant effect on relieving orthodontic pain and has no effect on the rate of bracket breakage. Therefore, chewing gum can be recommended as a suitable substitute for analgesics to reduce orthodontic pain.
Topics: Humans; Chewing Gum; Pain; Analgesics; Orthodontic Brackets; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 37936237
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01467-y -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2021Debonding of orthodontic brackets is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the best option for treating debonded brackets should be indicated.... (Review)
Review
Debonding of orthodontic brackets is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the best option for treating debonded brackets should be indicated. This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of rebonded brackets after different residual adhesive removal methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BVS databases were screened up to December 2020. Bond strength comparisons were made considering the method used for removing the residual adhesive on the bracket base. A total of 12 studies were included for the meta-analysis. Four different adhesive removal methods were identified: sandblasting, laser, mechanical grinding, and direct flame. When compared with new orthodontic metallic brackets, bond strength of debonded brackets after air abrasion ( = 0.006), mechanical grinding ( = 0.007), and direct flame ( < 0.001) was significantly lower. The use of an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser showed similar shear bond strength (SBS) values when compared with those of new orthodontic brackets ( = 0.71). The Er:YAG laser could be considered an optimal method for promoting the bond of debonded orthodontic brackets. Direct flame, mechanical grinding, or sandblasting are also suitable, obtaining clinically acceptable bond strength values.
PubMed: 34683722
DOI: 10.3390/ma14206120 -
International Orthodontics Mar 2021The objectives of this systematic review of the literature are to search for BPA release from biomaterials used in orthodontics and to highlight their possible impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this systematic review of the literature are to search for BPA release from biomaterials used in orthodontics and to highlight their possible impact on human health.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model, digital and manual searches were conducted in February 2020 in the database of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Thirteen parameters relating to the release and biological effects of BPA were identified and analysed.
RESULTS
Thirty-one non-randomized clinical trials were included. In general, the level of evidence was low, and the risk of bias ranged from moderate to high. Furthermore, although at different concentrations, most of in vitro and in vivo studies found BPA release from orthodontic adhesives. The lack of standardized protocols and the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the studies prevented a valid interpretation of the actual results. Concerning the possible toxicity of BPA, no conclusive scientific evidence could be drawn, but it seems that orthodontic biomaterials containing BPA have potential adverse biological effects in humans.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Until we have solid evidence from clinical trials, clinicians should consider that orthodontic adhesives containing BPA have potential short- and long-term adverse biological effects in humans. Careful consideration should therefore be given to bonding, polymerization and debonding protocols in orthodontics.
Topics: Animals; Benzhydryl Compounds; Biocompatible Materials; Databases, Factual; Dental Cements; Endocrine Disruptors; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Phenols; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33308954
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.11.002 -
American Journal of Orthodontics and... Feb 2023Space closure is a challenging and time-consuming phase of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. This systematic review evaluated canine retraction duration using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Space closure is a challenging and time-consuming phase of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. This systematic review evaluated canine retraction duration using fixed appliances after maxillary first premolar extraction.
METHODS
Unrestricted systematic literature searches were conducted in 8 databases for randomized clinical trials, assessing the duration and rate of maxillary canine retraction using fixed appliances with or without treatment adjuncts published up to July 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation were conducted independently and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of average rates or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were conducted at α = 5%, followed by sensitivity and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation analysis.
RESULTS
Fifty randomized clinical trials (6 parallel and 44 split-mouth designs) covering 811 participants (mean age 19.9 years; 34% male) were included. The estimated average pooled duration to achieve complete canine retraction was 4.98 months (2 trials; 95% CI, -2.9 to 12.88 months). Pooled average canine retraction was 0.97 mm at months 0-1 (23 trials; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), 1.83 mm at months 0-2 (20 trials; 95% CI, 1.52-2.14), 2.44 mm at months 0-3 (23 trials; 95% CI, 2.10-2.79), 3.49 mm at months 0-4 (6 trials; 95% CI, 1.81-5.17) and 4.25 mm at months 0-5 (2 trials; 95% CI, 0.36-8.14). Surgically-assisted orthodontics was associated with greater canine retraction at all time points: months 0-1 (10 trials; MD, 0.52 mm; P = 0.004), months 0-2 (8 trials; MD, 0.53 mm; P = 0.04), months 0-3 (8 trials; MD, 0.67 mm; P = 0.01), and months 0-4 (3 trials; MD, 1.13 mm; P = 0.01), whereas subgroup analyses indicated significant effects of anchorage reinforcement method and bracket slot size on canine retraction.
CONCLUSIONS
The average time to achieve complete retraction of the maxillary canine using fixed appliances was around 5.0 months. Most studies used split-mouth randomization to investigate canine retraction for around 1-3 months, with substantial heterogeneity across studies. At 3 months of treatment, high-quality evidence supported greater canine retraction with surgically-assisted orthodontics.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontics; Mouth; Dental Care; Cuspid; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 36464569
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.08.009