To compare the clinical failure rates of bonded first molar tubes with those of cemented bands during fixed appliance therapy.
Design
Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.
Setting
Two UK hospital orthodontic clinics, February 2001–December 2004.
Participants
Hospital waiting list patients needing fixed appliances (n = 110).
Method
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.
Results
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.
Conclusion
First molar tubes bonded with Rely-A-Bond composite showed a significantly higher first-time failure rate than bands cemented with Intact GIC.
ZachrissonBUA posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod1977; 71: 173–89.
2.
ZachrissonBU, BrobakkenBOClinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod1978; 74: 62–77.
3.
ReynoldsIR, van FraunhoferJA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod1976; 3: 91–95.
4.
ThanosCE, MunhollandT, CaputoAAAdhesion of mesh-base direct-bonding brackets. Am J Orthod1979; 75: 421–30.
5.
MaijerR, SmithDCVariables influencing the bond strength of metal orthodontic bracket bases. Am J Orthod1981; 79: 20–34.
6.
ReganD, van NoortR.Bond strengths of two integral bracket-base combinations: an in vitro comparison with foil mesh. Eur J Orthod1989; 11: 144–53.
7.
JohnstonCD, BurdenDJ, HusseyDL, MitchellCCBonding to molars—the effect of etch time (an in vitro study). Eur J Orthod1998; 20: 195–99.
8.
MattickCR, HobsonRSA comparative micro-topographic study of the buccal enamel of different tooth types. J Orthod2000; 27: 143–48.
9.
KnoxJ, HubschP, JonesML, MiddletonJInfluence of bracket base design on the strength of the bracket-cement interface. J Orthod2000; 27: 249–54.
10.
BanksPABond failure rates – mini-twin versus standard brackets. British Orthodontic Society Clinical Effectiveness Working Party Newsletter. 2003; 16: 4.
11.
HobsonRS, McCabeJF, HoggSDBond strength to surface enamel for different tooth types. Dent Mater2001; 17: 184–89.
12.
EliadesT, BrantleyWAThe inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod2000; 22: 13–23.
13.
PickettKL, SadowskyPL, JacobsenA, LacefieldWOrthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod2001; 71: 141–48.
SunnaS, RockWPClinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod1998; 25: 283–87.
16.
FrickerJP, McLachlanMDClinical studies of glass ionomer cements. Part 1—a twelve month clinical study comparing zinc phosphate cement to glass ionomer. Aust Orthod J1985; 9: 179–80.
17.
MillettDT, GordonPHThe performance of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement—a retrospective analysis. Br J Orthod1992; 19: 215–20.
18.
MaijerR, SmithDCA comparison between zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cement in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1988; 93: 27–39.
19.
FrickerJPA 12-month clinical study comparing four glass ionomer cements for the cementation of orthodontic molar bands. Aust Orthod J1989; 11: 10–13.
20.
StirrupsDRA comparative clinical trial of a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. Br J Orthod1991; 18: 15–20.
21.
FrickerJPA 12-month clinical comparison of resin-modified light-activated adhesives for the cementation of orthodontic molar bands. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1997; 112: 239–43.
22.
MillettDT, McCabeJF, BennettTG, CarterNE, GordonPHThe effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod1995; 22: 161–69.
23.
HodgesSJ, GilthorpeMS, HuntNPThe effect of microetching on the retention of orthodontic molar bands: a clinical trial. Eur J Orthod2001; 23: 91–97.
24.
JohnstonCD, McSherryPFThe effects of sandblasting on the bond strength of molar attachments—an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod1999; 21: 311–17.
25.
GeigerAM, GorelickL, GwinnettAJBond failure rates of facial and lingual attachments. J Clin Orthod1983; 17: 165–69.
26.
MillettDT, HallgrenA, FornellA, RobertsonMBonded molar tubes: a retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1999; 115: 667–74.
27.
PandisN, ChristensenL, EliadesTLong-term clinical failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod2005; 75: 1000–2.
2001 Census. Standard area statistics (England and Wales). Data service provider: Census Dissemination Unit, MIMAS (University of Manchester); service funder: Economic and Social Research Council (with the support of the Joint Information Systems Committee); data collection funder: Office for National Statistics; original data creator: Office for National Statistics; depositor: office for national statistics; registrar: census registration service (University of Essex).
33.
DonnerA, KlarN.Design and analysis of cluster randomisation trials in health research. London: Arnold, 2000.
34.
CoxDRRegression models and life tables (with discussions). J R Stat Soc1972; 34: 187–220.
35.
KerrySM, BlandJMSample size in cluster randomisation. BMJ1998; 316: 549.
