-
Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and... Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess how laser conditioning affected brackets bonded to dental ceramics' shear bond strength (SBS). The study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess how laser conditioning affected brackets bonded to dental ceramics' shear bond strength (SBS). The study was conducted by searching Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to September 14, 2022. In addition, the reference lists of the relevant articles were checked manually. Articles that compared SBS of laser-treated feldspathic, lithium disilicate, or zirconia surfaces with other standard techniques for bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets were considered. Using a random-effects model, data pooling was carried out as the weighted mean difference (WMD). This study initially contained 1717 reports, and following review, 32 articles were deemed suitable for our meta-analysis. The pooling results showed that the treatments with lasers such as "Er:YAG" [WMD = -1.12 MPa; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.93 to -0.31], "Er:YAG + Silane" (WMD = -3.08 MPa; 95% CI: -4.77 to -1.40), and "Nd: YAG + Silane" (WMD = -2.58 MPa; 95% CI: -3.76 to -1.40) had statistically significant lower adhesion values compared with controls. Contrarily, "Ti:Sapphire femtosecond" demonstrated significantly higher bonding values (WMD = 0.94 MPa; 95% CI: 0.29-1.60). In contrast, other interventions obtained no statistically significant difference in SBS. Most of the laser groups showed results comparable with those of conventional approaches. Although more research is necessary for definitive conclusions, laser treatment may be an effective option for treating the surfaces of ceramic materials.
Topics: Ceramics; Lasers; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Orthodontic Brackets; Shear Strength; Silanes; Surface Properties
PubMed: 37862260
DOI: 10.1089/photob.2023.0098 -
International Orthodontics Sep 2023Tooth bleaching was reported to decrease bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The antioxidant application was investigated to reverse the bleaching effect for... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Tooth bleaching was reported to decrease bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The antioxidant application was investigated to reverse the bleaching effect for immediate bracket bonding. This scoping review of in vitro studies is to assess systematically the effect of antioxidant application on shear bond strength (SBS) before orthodontic bracket bonding after tooth bleaching.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review was provided according to the Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. An electronic literature search was performed for full-text articles in English via Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Google Scholar databases from 2012 to May 9, 2023.
RESULTS
A total of 549 records were retrieved from the electronic search, and 361 after discarding duplicates. According to eligibility criteria, 23 records were included in this study.
CONCLUSION
Included studies revealed that antioxidants could increase the SBS of brackets after bleaching. However, there was controversiality whether SBS was just improved or restored to the unbleached level according to various factors, including the antioxidant type, concentration, application time, and form. Most studies reported that 10% sodium ascorbate (SA), ascorbic acid, green tea (GT), and tocopherol solutions restored SBS of metal brackets but not ceramic brackets. The result of 10% SA and GT gel was controversial. Lower concentrations than 10% was effective with pink bark, grape seed, quercetin flavonoid, and chamomile to restore SBS. The included studies revealed that retinol acetate, gooseberry, and dimethyl sulfoxide did not restore SBS.
Topics: Humans; Antioxidants; Tooth Bleaching; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Bonding; Ascorbic Acid; Shear Strength
PubMed: 37257393
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2023.100777 -
Journal of Orthodontic Science 2024Enamel demineralization is a very common occurrence around bonded brackets in an orthodontic practice. Fluoride (FLR) applications have been used to prevent... (Review)
Review
Enamel demineralization is a very common occurrence around bonded brackets in an orthodontic practice. Fluoride (FLR) applications have been used to prevent decalcification and further progression of white spot lesions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to systematically appraise available literature on the effectiveness of fluoride mouthrinse in the prevention of demineralization around fixed orthodontic appliances. A search was conducted for randomized controlled clinical trials among four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane Review) through MeSH terms and keywords. Studies were excluded if random allocation was not conducted, or if they were animal or studies. About 146 articles were screened and 5 studies were selected for the present review. Only two studies were selected for MA due to variations in the measurement of outcomes among studies. This review concluded that rinsing with FLR in the course of the fixed orthodontic treatment lessens demineralization around the bracket. Using FLR mouthrinse to inhibit the formation of white spot lesions or dental caries in patients with multiple cavities or restoration can be considered in clinical practice.
PubMed: 38784077
DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_116_23 -
Folia Medica Cracoviensia Oct 2023The objective of this study was to review the current knowledge based on in vitro and in vivo studies, that evaluated the enamel damage connected with removal of metal...
The objective of this study was to review the current knowledge based on in vitro and in vivo studies, that evaluated the enamel damage connected with removal of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets taking into account different debonding methods. Brackets fracture was also assessed. The protocol for this study was constructed according to the PRISMA statement. The literature review was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases in May 2021. The searching was repeated in Journal of Stomatology, Orthodontic Forum and grey literature was screened using Google Scholar. Out of eligible studies 207 were screened by title and abstract, 85 subjected to full-text analysis and 30 were qualified for the research. The prevalence of enamel fracture ranged from 0 to 94.4%. The results of our review do not allow to identify the manual method of debonding that minimizes the risk of enamel damage. Thermal method and laser irradiation reduce the risk of enamel fracture.
Topics: Humans; Ceramics; Orthodontic Brackets; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 38310534
DOI: 10.24425/fmc.2023.147219 -
International Orthodontics Dec 2021To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.
RESULTS
On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB's brackets compared to CB's attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).
CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.
Topics: Humans; Mouth; Network Meta-Analysis; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 34629309
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2019The direct and indirect bonding techniques are commonly used in orthodontic treatment. The differences of the two techniques deserve evidence-based study. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The direct and indirect bonding techniques are commonly used in orthodontic treatment. The differences of the two techniques deserve evidence-based study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), wherein direct and indirect bonding techniques were used in orthodontic patients were considered. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant articles published up to December 2018. Grey literature was also searched. Two authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using the data collection form. The included trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool.
RESULTS
Of the 1557 studies screened, 42 full articles were scrutinized and assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs (247 participants) were finally included for the analyses. The qualitative synthesis showed that no significant difference existed in the accuracy of bracket placement and oral hygiene status between the two bonding techniques. The indirect bonding was found to involve less chairside time but more total working time compared with the direct bonding. The meta-analysis on bond failure rate demonstrated no significant difference between the direct and indirect bonding (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.78-1.64, I = 22%, P = 0.50). Consistent results were obtained in the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
Weak evidence suggested that the direct and indirect bonding techniques had no significant difference in bracket placement accuracy, oral hygiene status and bond failure rate, for bonding orthodontic brackets. The indirect bonding might require less chairside time but more total working time in comparison with the direct bonding technique. High-quality well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed before a conclusive recommendation could be made.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets
PubMed: 31286897
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0831-4 -
Periodontal Health in Patients with Self-Ligating Brackets: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to assess the available evidence from human clinical studies of using self-ligating brackets compared to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to assess the available evidence from human clinical studies of using self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets in maintaining periodontal health.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The protocol details were registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022302689). This review was performed under the PRISMA guidelines. The electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature databases, as well as manual searches to find relevant articles published until January 2022. The inclusion criteria consisted of human clinical studies which reported the use of fixed orthodontic treatment with self-ligating brackets (SLBs) or conventional brackets (CBs) in maintaining periodontal health.
RESULTS
A total of 453 studies were imported into the Covidence Platform from the databases. Of these, six articles met the inclusion criteria. For plaque index, statistical significance was achieved for SLBs compared to CBs (0.31 (95% CI (0.15 to 0.48), = 0.0001). For gingival index, probing depth and bleeding on probing no statistical significance was achieved. None of the included studies assessed clinical attachment level.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review with meta-analysis was considered to provide relevant data on periodontal health during orthodontic treatment in patients with SLBs in comparison with patients wearing CBs. Our findings indicated that SLBs are not superior to CBs in terms of periodontal health.
PubMed: 35566696
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092570 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2022Many modifications to fixed orthodontic appliances have been introduced to manage biofilm formation. The aim of this review was to investigate elastomeric ligation in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many modifications to fixed orthodontic appliances have been introduced to manage biofilm formation. The aim of this review was to investigate elastomeric ligation in comparison with stainless steel ligation and self-ligation with regard to microbiological and clinical indicators of biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances.
METHODS
The MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases were searched up to February 2021 and supplemented by additional manual searches of bibliographies. Parallel-group and split-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different ligation methods were identified. The Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool was applied to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 11 RCTs were included in this review. Nine RCTs compared self-ligation and elastomeric ligation; two compared elastomeric ligation and stainless steel ligation. The included studies had either some concerns or were at a high risk of bias. Qualitative assessment of the studies identified that there were no significant differences in biofilm formation between elastomeric ligation and self-ligation, but that stainless steel ligation was less susceptible to biofilm formation than elastomeric ligation.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no significant differences between self-ligation and elastomeric ligation for biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances. Stainless steel ligation may accumulate less biofilm than elastomeric ligation; however, the clinical significance of the difference could not be evaluated. Further high-quality studies are required in order to determine which ligation method is better for managing biofilm formation in patients wearing multi-bracketed fixed orthodontic appliances.
Topics: Biofilms; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 34042260
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12503 -
International Orthodontics Mar 2020Demineralized white spot lesions (DWSLs) are one of the unfavourable effects of orthodontic treatment. Resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) was introduced to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Demineralized white spot lesions (DWSLs) are one of the unfavourable effects of orthodontic treatment. Resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) was introduced to reduce its occurrence.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to determine the incidence of DWSLs as primary objective and bond failure rate in brackets bonded with RMGIC versus conventional composite (CC) as secondary objective.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A thorough literature search was done until April 2019 on various databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane database, CINHAL, Dental and Oral Science, and manual search. Only human clinical trials and published in English language were included. We considered the experimental group of orthodontic patients with brackets bonded with RMGIC and the control group with brackets bonded with CC. Blind and induplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were undertaken. RevMan software was used for data analysis. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to express the effect estimate of frequency of bracket failure bonded using RMGIC and CC. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for N-RCTs. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analysis were performed as well.
RESULTS
Out of 2285 articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. Five were RCTs and four were N-RCTs. Out of nine, seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. A random effect model was used. No significant difference was found in the bond failure rate (risk ratio: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.57-3.87; P≤0.42). No difference was found in the occurrence of DWSLs between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited number of studies and studies with high risk of bias, no strong conclusion can be drawn. More studies need to be done to reasonably conclude that RMGIC is beneficial in reducing the occurrence of DWSLs and have comparable bond failure rate. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019125386) prior to the commencement of the systematic review.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Bonding; Dental Enamel; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Tooth Demineralization
PubMed: 31882396
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.10.003 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2023Root resorption is one of the complications of orthodontic treatment, and has a varied and unclear aetiology. (Review)
Review
The Assessment of the Rank of Torque Control during Incisor Retraction and Its Impact on the Resorption of Maxillary Central Incisor Roots According to Incisive Canal Anatomy-Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
Root resorption is one of the complications of orthodontic treatment, and has a varied and unclear aetiology.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the relationship between upper incisor resorption and contact with the incisive canal and the risk of resorption during orthodontic treatment associated with upper incisor retraction and torque control.
SEARCH METHODS
According to PRISMA guidelines, the main research question was defined in PICO. Scientific databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for linking keywords: Resorption of roots incisive canal, Resorption of roots nasopalatine canal, Incisive canal retraction and Nasopalatine canal retraction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
No time filters were applied due to the significantly limited number of studies. Publications in the English language were selected. Based on the information provided in the abstracts, articles were selected according to the following criteria: controlled clinical prospective trials and case reports. No randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical prospective trials (CCTs) were found. Articles unrelated to the topic of the planned study were excluded. The literature was reviewed, and the following journals were searched: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, International Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, Angle Orthodontist, Progress in Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics and Korean Journal of Orthodontics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The articles were subjected to risk of bias and quality assessment using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS
Four articles with a total of 164 participants were selected. In all studies, differences in root length were observed after contact with the incisive canal, which was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The contact of incisor roots with the incisive canal increases the risk of resorption of these roots. IC anatomy should be considered in orthodontic diagnosis using 3D imaging. The risk of resorption complications can be reduced by appropriate planning of the movement and extent of the incisor roots (torque control) and the possible use of incisor brackets with built-in greater angulation. Registration CRD42022354125.
PubMed: 37109117
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12082774