-
Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2009This review aimed to identify the evidence for the efficacy of archwires used in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment by undertaking a systematic review of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to identify the evidence for the efficacy of archwires used in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment by undertaking a systematic review of the literature.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to July 2008. Reference lists of identified articles and relevant review articles were checked for further possible studies.
REVIEW METHODS
Controlled clinical trials and randomised clinical trials that compared aligning archwires and reported objective measures of alignment were selected for inclusion. Validity and quality assessment were undertaken to identify studies with a low risk of bias. Details of the study methodology and the reported results were then abstracted.
RESULTS
100 studies were identified by the searches and 7 of these were identified as meeting the selection criteria. Four studies were deemed, after quality assessment, to have a low risk of bias and data was extracted from these. No two studies shared a common methodology or common reporting of outcome. Meta-analysis was therefore not possible.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient data in these studies to make clear recommendations regarding the most effective archwire for alignment. Recommendations on future study design have been made.
Topics: Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Orthodontic Wires; Orthodontics, Corrective
PubMed: 19286875
DOI: 10.1179/14653120722914 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). 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 controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch;(2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.
Topics: Dental Cements; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Molar; Orthodontic Brackets; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self-Curing of Dental Resins
PubMed: 28230910
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub3 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Mar 2023Liu S, Silikas N, Ei-Angbawi A. Analysis of the effectiveness of the fiber-reinforced composite lingual retainer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
FIBER REINFORCED COMPOSITE RETAINERS MAY BE AS EFFECTIVE AS MULTISTRANDED STAINLESS-STEEL WIRES IN FAILURE RATES AND MINIMAL ADVERSE EFFECT, BUT SUPERIOR IN TERMS OF RELAPSE AND PATIENT SATISFACTION.
ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Liu S, Silikas N, Ei-Angbawi A. Analysis of the effectiveness of the fiber-reinforced composite lingual retainer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Aug 26:S0889-5406(22)00,432-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.07.003. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36,031,511.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
Not reported.
TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis of data.
Topics: Humans; Dental Bonding; Patient Satisfaction; Stainless Steel; Orthodontic Retainers; Orthodontic Wires; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Recurrence
PubMed: 36914296
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101843 -
BMC Oral Health Nov 2015The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and the amount of antero-posterior anchorage (AP) loss during maxillary canine retraction, using conventional brackets (CBs) and self-ligating brackets (SLBs).
METHODS
An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertake in September 2014 in the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Web of science. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Quality assessment of the included articles was performed. Two of the authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction.
RESULTS
Six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 control clinical studies. One was assessed as being at low risk of bias. Five trials were assessed as being at moderate risk of bias. The meta-analysis from 6 eligible studies showed that no statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars.
CONCLUSION
There is some evidence from this review that both brackets showed the same rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars. The results of the present systematic review should be viewed with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled interpreted factors in the included studies. Further well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials are required, to facilitate comparisons of the results.
Topics: Cuspid; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 26531223
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0127-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2011Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 16 December 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 December 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 December 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, are included.Trials are also included where:(1) a tube is bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch; (2) molar tubes have been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.
Topics: Dental Cements; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Molar; Orthodontic Brackets; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self-Curing of Dental Resins
PubMed: 21678375
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub2 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research May 2008To review recent literature to determine strength of clinical evidence concerning the influence of various factors on the efficiency (rate of tooth movement) of closing... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review recent literature to determine strength of clinical evidence concerning the influence of various factors on the efficiency (rate of tooth movement) of closing extraction spaces using sliding mechanics.
DESIGN
A comprehensive systematic review on prospective clinical trials. An electronic search (1966-2006) of several databases limiting the searches to English and using several keywords was performed. Also a hand search of five key journals specifically searching for prospective clinical trials relevant to orthodontic space closure using sliding mechanics was completed. Outcome Measure - Rate of tooth movement.
RESULTS
Ten prospective clinical trials comparing rates of closure under different variables and focusing only on sliding mechanics were selected for review. Of these ten trials on rate of closure, two compared arch wire variables, seven compared material variables used to apply force, and one examined bracket variables. Other articles which were not prospective clinical trials on sliding mechanics, but containing relevant information were examined and included as background information. CONCLUSION - The results of clinical research support laboratory results that nickel-titanium coil springs produce a more consistent force and a faster rate of closure when compared with active ligatures as a method of force delivery to close extraction space along a continuous arch wire; however, elastomeric chain produces similar rates of closure when compared with nickel-titanium springs. Clinical and laboratory research suggest little advantage of 200 g nickel-titanium springs over 150 g springs. More clinical research is needed in this area.
Topics: Biomechanical Phenomena; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Space Closure; Orthodontic Wires; Prospective Studies; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 18416747
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2008.00421.x -
L' Orthodontie Francaise Dec 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare self-ligating brackets (SLBs) considered as a whole to conventional brackets (CBs). An electronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare self-ligating brackets (SLBs) considered as a whole to conventional brackets (CBs). An electronic search was performed in three databases (PubMed, MEDLINE via Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to June 2017. Additional articles were hand searched from January 2006 to June 2017. This meta-analysis was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split mouth design studies (SMDs). No distinction was made between active and passive SLBs. The following variables were investigated : treatment duration, number of visits, alignment rate, rate of space closure, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of treatment, pain experience during wire insertion or removal, bond failure rate, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal indices, occlusal outcomes, transverse arch dimensional changes and root resorption. 25 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally selected. It was more painful to insert or remove a 0.019× 0.025 SS archwire in/from SLBs. It was significantly quicker to insert or remove an archwire from SLBs. There was less bleeding on probing with SLBs 4 or 5 weeks after bonding. All other variables did not exhibit any significant difference between SLBs and CBs. Out of the 31 comparisons between self-ligating and conventional brackets, 9 only revealed statistically significant differences. This meta-analysis contradicts most of the promotional statements put forward by the distributors.
Topics: Face; Humans; Mouth; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Root Resorption
PubMed: 33355535
DOI: 10.1684/orthodfr.2020.29