-
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2021Various surface pre-treatment methods have been adapted to optimize the bonding between the zirconia ceramics and the orthodontic brackets.
INTRODUCTION
Various surface pre-treatment methods have been adapted to optimize the bonding between the zirconia ceramics and the orthodontic brackets.
OBJECTIVE
This review is aimed at systematically analyzing the relevant data available in the literature, to find out the most effective and durable bonding protocol.
METHODS
Database search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, during September 2020. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Based on the inclusion criteria, 19 articles were selected for qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the methodology among the studies. Most of the studies scored medium risk of bias. Compared to the untreated surface, surface pretreatments like sandblasting and lasers were advantageous. Primers and universal adhesive were mostly used as an adjunct to the mechanical pretreatment of the zirconia surface. In most studies, thermocycling seemed to lower the shear bond strength (SBS) of the orthodontic brackets.
CONCLUSION
Based on this qualitative review, surface pretreatments with lasers and sandblasting can be suggested to optimize the bracket bond strength. To clarify this finding, meta-analysis is anticipated. Hence, high heterogeneity of the included studies demands standardization of the methodology.
Topics: Ceramics; Orthodontic Brackets; Shear Strength; Zirconium
PubMed: 35640082
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.26.5.e212118.oar -
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 -
Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB).
METHODS
Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.
PubMed: 35566695
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092568 -
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 -
Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology Sep 2022The purpose of this systematic review was to search in literature in which severity unintended effects are caused by dental materials in magnetic resonance imaging...
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review was to search in literature in which severity unintended effects are caused by dental materials in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), such as to evaluate whether these artifacts hamper the diagnosis in the head and neck region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Clinical studies showing the severity of artifacts which dental materials are capable of causing in MRI of head and neck, such as their influence on diagnostic accuracy, were included in this review. The searches were conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science), and a manual search was made in the reference lists of papers screened for full-text reading. Risk of bias was assessed using "Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2" (QUADAS-2). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
From 151 studies selected for full-reading, 19 were considered eligible for this review. Artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances were well-documented, and stainless steel brackets were the materials most likely to cause artifacts in MR imaging of head and neck. The literature was scarce for dental implants and restorations. Diagnoses within the oral cavity, but also those of the brain and craniofacial structures, were affected.
CONCLUSION
Artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances may affect the diagnosis in oral cavity and craniofacial structures. Data regarding dental implants and prosthodontics restorations were inconclusive. The severity of artifacts in MRI and their influence on diagnosis is dependent on dental material features, location in the oral cavity, and magnetic resonance parameters.
Topics: Artifacts; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mouth; Orthodontic Appliances
PubMed: 35348371
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210450 -
International Orthodontics Mar 2022To assess the transfer accuracy of three dimensional-printed trays (3D-printed trays) and to compare the accuracy of this approach with the other methods used for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To assess the transfer accuracy of three dimensional-printed trays (3D-printed trays) and to compare the accuracy of this approach with the other methods used for the same purpose.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, Google Scholar and ProQuest (dissertation and theses). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved the assessment of transfer errors measured by the superimposition of the original set-up of brackets and the final positions after transfer. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's tools.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included. The pooled estimate of the transfer error in the linear dimensions showed an error of 0.095mm in the mesiodistal direction (95%CI: 0.035, 0.155), 0.114mm in the buccolingual direction (95%CI: 0.067, 0.160) and 0.111mm in the vertical direction (95%CI: -0.033, 0.255). Concerning the angular dimensions, the pooled estimate showed a tipping error of 1.342 (95%CI: 0.444, 2.240), rotational error of 0.998 (95%CI: 0.323, 1.672), and torque error of 1.913 (95%CI: 0.922, 2.903). Thus, the maximum transfer error was in the bucco-lingual and torque directions. 3D-printed trays had better control in mesiodistal and vertical directions than vacuum-formed trays. Polyvinyl siloxane trays were more accurate in the vertical direction than 3D-printed trays. The scarcity of randomized clinical trials is the main risk of bias of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the available evidence, 3D-printed trays have an acceptable transfer accuracy, based on the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO OGS), with maximum linear transfer error in the buccolingual direction and maximum angulation error in the torque. Conducting randomized clinical trials on this topic is highly recommended.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Humans; Models, Dental; Orthodontic Brackets; Vacuum
PubMed: 35144909
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2022.100612 -
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 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The... (Review)
Review
: There has been an increase in demand for orthodontic treatment within the adult population, who likely receive restorative treatments using ceramic structures. The current state of the art regarding the most effective method to achieve an appropriate bond strength of brackets on ceramic surfaces isn't consensual. This systematic review aims to compare the available surface treatments to ceramics and determine the one that allows to obtain the best bond strength. : This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICO methodology was used, with the question "What is the most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic crowns or veneers?". The research was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. In vitro and ex vivo studies were included. The methodological quality was evaluated using the guidelines for reporting of preclinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. : A total of 655 articles searched in various databases were initially scrutinized. Sevety one articles were chosen for quality analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high in most studies. The use of hydrofluoric acid (HF), silane and laser afforded the overall best results. HF and HF plus laser achieved significantly highest bond strength scores in felsdphatic porcelain, while laser was the best treatment in lithium disilicate ceramics. : The most effective technique for bonding brackets on ceramic is dependent on the type of ceramic.
PubMed: 35049723
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9010014 -
BioMed Research International 2022Despite the importance of identifying proper novel porcelain preparation techniques to improve bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces, and despite the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the importance of identifying proper novel porcelain preparation techniques to improve bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces, and despite the highly controversial results on this subject, no systematic review or meta-analysis exists in this regard.
OBJECTIVE
To comparatively summarize the effects of all the available porcelain surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of orthodontic brackets (metal, ceramic, polycarbonate) bonded to feldspathic porcelain restorations. . A search was conducted for articles published between January 1990 and February 2021 in PubMed, MeSH, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and reference lists. . English-language articles comparing SBS of feldspathic porcelain's surface preparation methods for metal/ceramic/polycarbonate orthodontic brackets were included. Articles comparing silanes/bonding agents/primers without assessing roughening techniques were excluded. . Studies were summarized and risk of bias assessed. Each treatment's SBS was compared with the 6 and 10 MPa recommended thresholds. Studies including comparator (HF [hydrofluoric acid] + silane + bonding) were candidates for meta-analysis. ARI scores were dichotomized. Fixed- and random-effects models were used and forest plots drawn. Egger regressions and/or funnel plots were used to assess publication biases.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were included (140 groups of SBS, 82 groups of ARI). Bond strengths of 21 studies were meta-analyzed (64 comparisons in 14 meta-analyses). ARIs of 12 articles were meta-analyzed (28 comparisons in 8 meta-analyses). Certain protocols provided bond strengths poorer than HF + silane + bonding: "abrasion + bonding, diamond bur + bonding, HF + bonding, Nd:YAG laser (1 W) + silane + bonding, CO laser (2 W/2 Hz) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding." Abrasion + HF + silane + bonding might act almost better than HF + silane + bonding. Abrasion + silane + bonding yields controversial results, being slightly (marginally significantly) better than HF + silane + bonding. Some protocols had controversial results with their overall effects being close to HF + silane + bonding: "Cojet + silane + bonding, diamond bur + silane + bonding, Er:YAG laser (1.6 W/20 Hz) + silane + bonding." Few methods provided bond strengths similar to HF + silane + bonding without much controversy: "Nd:YAG laser (2 W) + silane + bonding" and "phosphoric acid + silane + bonding" (in ceramic brackets). ARIs were either similar to HF + silane + bonding or relatively skewed towards the "no resin on porcelain" end. The risk of bias was rather low. . All the found studies were in vitro and thus not easily translatable to clinical conditions. Many metasamples were small.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation methods HF + silane + bonding, abrasion + HF + silane + bonding, Nd:YAG (2 W) + silane + bonding, and phosphoric acid + silane + bonding (in ceramic brackets) might provide stronger bonds.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Shear Strength; Surface Properties
PubMed: 35036438
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8246980 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Aug 2022Bonding with self-etch primers (SEPs) is one of the most popular systems for attaching orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface. There are conflicting reports about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bonding with self-etch primers (SEPs) is one of the most popular systems for attaching orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface. There are conflicting reports about the efficacy and success of these systems compared with acid-etch (AE) bonding.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare SEP with conventional AE technique for bonding brackets in fixed orthodontics.
SEARCH METHODS
Articles related to the subject of interest were searched in electronic databases, including PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane's CENTRAL, from inception to 2 June 2021. Search for grey literature, and hand search for relevant studies were also performed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Based on the PICO model, randomized clinical trials using full-arch bonded fixed orthodontic appliances comparing SEP and conventional AE systems were included in the review process.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
After assessing the risk of bias, data from the included studies were extracted using custom piloted forms. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of bracket failure, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and bonding time.
RESULTS
Nineteen randomized clinical trials were included in the systematic review and 17 randomized clinical trials [5 parallel-group (PG) and 12 split-mouth (SM) studies] were included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference in bracket failure at 6 months [risk ratio (RR) = 1.50, P = 0.26, 12 SM] and (RR = 0.68, P = 0.34, 2 PG), 12 months (RR = 1.6, 8 SM) and (RR = 1.17, P = 0.54, 2 PG), and ≥18 months (RR = 0.84, P = 0.31, 3 SM) and (RR = 1.20, P = 0.3, 3 PG) between SEP and AE groups could be found. Also, ARI score was similar between different bonding systems [mean difference (MD) = -0.44, P = 0.06, 4 SM]. The bonding time per tooth was faster in the SEP group (MD = -26.55, P < 0.001, 2 SM) and (MD = -24.00, P < 0.001, 2 PG).
LIMITATIONS
inclusion of three studies with a high risk of bias and high amount of inconsistency between the results of individual studies were the biggest limitations of our review.
CONCLUSIONS
The bracket bonding failure and ARI score were not significantly different between self-etch and conventional AE bonding systems. The bonding time was lower for the SEP, but some other requirements for SEPs like pumice prophylaxis could diminish this advantage.
REGISTRATION
The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42021248540.
Topics: Bias; Dental Bonding; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Time Factors
PubMed: 35022707
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjab076