2018
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd002282.pub2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets

Abstract: References to other published versions of this review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Bracket failure rate: In addition to assessing demineralisation following orthodontic treatment, this study was designed to address some of the short-comings in the literature, that have been found in studies investigating the effectiveness of different bonding adhesives in regard to failure rates. 12 The finding that there were no differences in the failure rate between the two adhesives is contrary to the implied results of many laboratory studies that indicate glass ionomer cement has a lower bond strength than conventional composite resin. This again calls into question the applicability and validity of findings from laboratory studies.…”
Section: Main Findingsmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Bracket failure rate: In addition to assessing demineralisation following orthodontic treatment, this study was designed to address some of the short-comings in the literature, that have been found in studies investigating the effectiveness of different bonding adhesives in regard to failure rates. 12 The finding that there were no differences in the failure rate between the two adhesives is contrary to the implied results of many laboratory studies that indicate glass ionomer cement has a lower bond strength than conventional composite resin. This again calls into question the applicability and validity of findings from laboratory studies.…”
Section: Main Findingsmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…However, resin mesh of lingual multibracket appliances obtained higher ARI scores compared with metallic custom mesh of lingual multibracket appliances [27]. Otherwise, the influence of polishing of cement remnants on the enamel surfaces has also been analyzed, and an increase of enamel roughness in both buccal [28] and lingual multibracket appliances was reported [9]; therefore, the polishing of cement remnants is still a challenge for clinicians [29]. Eichenberger et al reported 0.20 µm of enamel removed after cement polishing of the lingual multibracket appliance therapy [30], and Janiszewska-Olszowska et al reported 13.70 µm of enamel removed after cement polishing of the buccal multibracket appliance therapy with a tungsten carbide bur [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a distinction needs to be made between operator and patient-related breakages, as the latter relates to patient adherence, which is measured under a different outcome domain. Therefore, breakages in this domain involve those that are assumed to be operator-induced, which would be relevant for studies investigating different bonding techniques, cement or bond strengths, such as those included in the Cochrane review of adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets, 29 as well as those involving potential fracture or failure of appliances or components such as temporary anchorage devices.…”
Section: Core Outcomes Within Outcome Domainsmentioning
confidence: 99%