Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Banding versus bonding of first permanent molars: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. A 12-month clinical comparison of resin-modified light-activated adhesives for the cementation of orthodontic molar bands. An in vivo and ex vivo study to evaluate the use of a glass polyphosphonate cement in orthodontic banding. A clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as an orthodontic bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin. Effects of glass ionomer cement, resin-based pit and fissure sealant and HF applications on occlusal caries in a developing country field trial. An investigation into the use of two polyacid-modified composite resins (compomers) and a resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement used to retain orthodontic bands. Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial. Fissure sealing with a light-cured resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (Vitrebond) compared with a resin sealant.
To compare the clinical failure rates of bonded first molar tubes with those of cemented bands during fixed appliance therapy.
                Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.
                Two UK hospital orthodontic clinics, February 2001-December 2004.
                Hospital waiting list patients needing fixed appliances (n = 110).
                Patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Experimental group patients (n = 55) received single first molar tubes (n = 181) bonded with a no-mix chemically cured composite (Rely-A-Bond) after a 30-second etch. Control group patients (n = 55) were treated with bands (n = 186) cemented with Intact glass ionomer cement (GIC). First-time failures were recorded together with the time of failure. All patients were followed to the end or discontinuation of treatment.
                First-time failures: bands = 18.8%; bonds = 33.7 %. Bonded tubes were more likely to fail [RR 2.4; 95% CI (1.4, 4.1)] compared with bands. Experimental group patients also had more bracket failures (P = 0.009), when analysed at patient level.
                First molar tubes bonded with Rely-A-Bond composite showed a significantly higher first-time failure rate than bands cemented with Intact GIC. To assess the effectiveness of banding versus bonding of first permanent molars during fixed appliance treatment; in terms of attachment failure, patient discomfort and post-treatment enamel demineralization.
                Multi-centre randomized clinical trial. Setting: One District General Hospital Orthodontic Department and two Specialist Orthodontic Practices. Participants: Orthodontic patients aged between 10 and 18 years old, randomly allocated to either receive molar bands (n=40) or molar bonds (n=40). Method: Bands were cemented with a conventional glass ionomer cement and tubes were bonded with light-cured composite to all four first permanent molar teeth for each subject. Attachments were reviewed at each recall appointment to assess loosening or loss. The clinical end point of the trial was the day of appliance debond. Enamel demineralization at debond was assessed using the modified International Caries Assessment and Detection System (ICDAS).
                The first time failure rate for molar bonds was 18·4% and 2·6% for molar bands (P=0·0002). Survival analysis demonstrated molar bonds were more likely to fail compared with molar bands. First permanent molars with bonded tubes experienced more demineralization than those with cemented bands (P=0·027). There was no statistically significant difference in discomfort experienced by patients after banding or bonding first permanent molars (P>0·05).
                This study shows that as part of fixed appliance therapy, American Orthodontics photoetched first permanent molar bands cemented with 3M ESPE Ketac-Cem perform better than American Orthodontics low profile photo-etched and mesh-based first permanent molar tubes bonded with 3M Unitek Transbond XT in terms of failure behaviour and molar enamel demineralization. A clinical trial is reported on the retention rates of resin-modified light-activated adhesives for the cementation of orthodontic molar bands. Fifty consecutive cases were fully banded and monitored over 12 months. Fuji II LC (GC International) recorded a failure rate of 2.9%, Bandlok (Reliance Orthodontic Products) 8.1%, with Ketac Cem (Espe) chemical cure 3.5%. There were no statistically significant differences between these rates. Fuji II LC and Ketac Cem failed at the interface between the adhesive and the metal, while Bandlok failed at the interface between the enamel and the adhesive. It is suggested that Fuji II LC and Ketac Cem will afford greater protection to the enamel against microleakage and demineralization than Bandlok. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a new glass polyphosphonate cement (Diamond) for orthodontic banding. Thirty-one subjects underwent in vivo testing to compare the failure rate of bands cemented using the test cement and bands cemented using a conventional glass polyalkenoate cement (Ketac-Cem) over a 6-month period at the beginning of active appliance therapy. In an ex vivo experiment 60 extracted teeth were banded using either the test cement or a glass polyalkenoate cement, and subjected to a debanding force using a Lloyd universal testing machine until failure. In the in vivo study the overall proportion of failure of the bands cemented with each cement was identical at 0.048. However, in the ex vivo study the probability of failure for the glass polyphosphonate cement was significantly higher than for the glass polyalkenoate cement, and the force to deband the glass polyalkenoate cement was greater than that of the glass polyphosphonate cement. In the clinical setting the new glass polyphosphonate cement performed as well as a conventional glass polyalkenoate cement, and these results suggest that it could be used as an alternative cement for orthodontic banding. The results of the ex vivo test bring into question the usefulness of this laboratory test as an indicator of clinical performance. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) has been suggested as an alternative to acrylic resin in bracket bonding because of its fluoride release. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate further the suitability of GIC as a bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin with regard to frequency of bracket failure, fracture modes and clean-up time after debonding. Two commercially available brackets were tested, one with a meshed foil base and the other with an integral base. A total of 60 patients, with a mean age of 13 years 7 months (range 10 years 8 months to 19 years 1 month) were consecutively selected. Brackets were bonded with a GIC (AquaCem, De Trey) and a no-mix diacrylate (Unite, Unitek Corp.) according to random assignment for each jaw. One group of patients (n = 30) was bonded with metal brackets with machine cut grooves in the base (DynaLock, Unitek). In the second group (n = 30) brackets with a meshed foil base (Unitwin, Unitek) were used. Bracket failure location during treatment was recorded as were fracture modes and time required for the clean-up of enamel surfaces at debonding. The frequency of failed brackets was higher with GIC (36 per cent) than with the diacrylate (15 per cent). Bracket failures for the cut groove base type occurred in 50 per cent with GIC and 23 per cent with the acrylic, meshed foil bases failed in 22 per cent GIC and in 7 per cent with the acrylic, respectively. The differences in failure between bracket types were significant at P < 0.001 for both bonding materials. Analysis of the fracture modes showed a small but noticeable difference in the strength of adhesion to the enamel surface, favouring GIC. Time required for the clean-up of enamel surfaces showed a significantly shorter debonding time for GIC. It is concluded that the use of a GIC for orthodontic bonding purposes considerably increases the risk of bond failures during treatment, especially in combination with a cut groove base type. One noticeable advantage with GIC bonding, however, is the shorter clean-up time for the enamel surfaces. The aim of this community-oriented study was to evaluate different methods to prevent fissure caries. The following products and measures were tested: 1) glass ionomer cement (GIC) applied by dentist; 2) same material applied by short term (3 days) trained personnel (teachers); 3) application of a 0.5% HF solution three times; 4) an established autopolymerized resin based sealant (Delton). The study was performed in Bangkok, Thailand, a city in a developing country experiencing increasing caries prevalence. Children with at least three sound permanent molars from two age groups, 7-8 and 12-13-yr-olds respectively were chosen from very low to medium socioeconomic level families. 1264 children were systematically assigned to experiment or control groups based on school and DMFT. For the younger age group, the 2 yr mean DFS occlusal increment in the Control group was 0.66 surfaces. Significantly lower increments were observed in the GIC experimental group: 0.17 surfaces applied by the teachers and 0.32 applied by dentist, corresponding to 74% and 52% reductions, respectively. The mean increment in the HF group was 0.44 surfaces, a 33% reduction in relation to the Control group. For the 12-13-yr-olds, the mean occlusal surface DF increment was 0.70 surfaces in the Control group. Almost no occlusal increment was found in the Delton group, 0.05 DFS, a 93% reduction. In the GIC Dentist group, the DFS increment was 0.48 and in the Teacher group 0.56, corresponding to 31% and 20% reduction, respectively. A slight and nonsignificant increase of caries in relation to the Control group was observed in the HF group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The aim of this investigation was to determine the effectiveness of a conventional glass poly(alkenoate) cement (Intact) and newer polyacid-modified composite resin cements (Transbond Plus and Ultra Band-Lok) to retain orthodontic bands. In the in vitro part of this study, stainless steel bands were cemented to 240 extracted third molar teeth in three test groups comprising Intact, Transbond Plus and Ultra Band-Lok. The force to deband (N) for all three cements was recorded using an Instron universal testing machine after the following observation periods: 20 minutes and 3, 6 and 12 months. The results indicated that all three cements increased their median force to deband after 12 months. Of the two compomers, Transbondtrade mark Plus demonstrated the highest median force to deband at all four time intervals. In the in vivo part of the study, 30 patients participated in a randomized cross-mouth clinical trial where the molar bands were cemented in place using either Intact or Transbond Plus. Ultra Band-Lok was not used in the clinical part of the study. The results showed there to be no clinically significant difference in band failure rates between the two cements. When patients were asked to score each for taste, there was a significant difference, with the glass poly(alkenoate) cement (Intact) being more acceptable than the polyacid-modified composite Transbond Plus (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the in vitro median force to deband or in vivo band failure rates between the glass poly(alkenoate) cement and the polyacid-modified composite resins. The choice of cementing agent can therefore be made on patient factors, e.g. taste, or operator factors, e.g. ease of handling, cost and shelf life. The time to first failure, the position of band failure at deband, and the change in enamel white spot lesions of teeth bonded with a modified composite or a conventional glass ionomer were compared in a randomized half-mouth trial over the full course of orthodontic treatment. One hundred forty band pairs were cemented in 98 subjects. Overall band failure rates of 5% and 2.8% were recorded for the modified composite and the conventional glass ionomer, respectively, with no significant difference found between their times to first band failure. At the end-of-treatment deband, the position of band failure was predominantly at the enamel-cement interface for the modified composite and at the band-cement interface for the conventional glass ionomer (P <.001). A comparison of changes in mean enamel white spot lesion scores during treatment did not reveal significant differences between the cement groups (P =.16). The aims of the present study were to evaluate the retention and caries-preventive effect of a single application of a light-cured resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (Vitrebond) in pits and fissures of newly erupted permanent first and second molars, when compared with a single application of a resin-based sealant (Concise White Sealant) during a 3-year period. The study group comprised 73 pairs of contralateral newly erupted permanent first and second molars (136 fissure sites) in 53 children (29 girls, 24 boys). A split-mouth experimental design was used in which the two sealants were randomly allocated to one of the teeth within each pair. Acid etching was not used before application of the glass-ionomer cement. The sealed teeth were checked for retention and caries after 1, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. The resin-based sealant was almost totally retained after 3 years (97%) and there was no caries in these teeth. The glass-ionomer cement was increasingly lost and could be observed in only 9% of the sealed sites after 3 years. Carious lesions developed in 10 (7.4%) sites (nine teeth, seven children). It was concluded that the resin-based sealant is superior to the glass-ionomer cement in preventing caries, and that the superior retention of the resin probably is an important factor for this.
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.