Millett Declan T, Mandall Nicky A, Mattick Rye Cr, Hickman Joy, Glenny Anne-Marie
Oral Health and Development, Cork University Dental School and Hospital, University College, Cork, Ireland.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15(6):CD008236. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
正畸治疗是使用固定或可摘矫治器(牙套)来矫正牙齿位置。固定矫治器的成功部分取决于金属附件(托槽和带环)粘贴在牙齿上,使其在治疗过程中不会脱落。托槽(金属方块)通常附着在除磨牙以外的牙齿上,磨牙处更常用带环(环绕每颗牙齿的金属环)。正畸管(允许钢丝穿过的不锈钢管)通常焊接在带环上,但也可以直接粘贴(粘结)在磨牙上。托槽、带环和粘结磨牙管的失败会减缓固定矫治器的治疗进程。这在临床时间、材料以及患者教育/工作时间损失方面也可能成本高昂。
评估在固定矫治器治疗期间,用于粘结磨牙管的粘合剂的有效性,以及用于粘结磨牙管的粘合剂与用于粘结带环的粘合剂的相对有效性,具体涉及:(1)治疗期间管(或带环)脱落的频率;(2)它们是否能保护粘结(或带环)的牙齿防止龋齿。
检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库(截至2010年12月16日)、Cochrane对照临床试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2010年第3期)、通过OVID检索的MEDLINE(1950年至2010年'12月16日)以及通过OVID检索的EMBASE(1980年至2010年12月16日)。对语言或出版日期没有限制。
对使用全牙弓固定正畸矫治器且磨牙管粘结于第一或第二恒磨牙的参与者进行的随机对照试验。比较用于粘结磨牙管(不锈钢或钛)的任何类型粘合剂与任何其他粘合剂的试验均纳入。还纳入以下试验:(1)在牙弓一侧的磨牙上粘结管,在同一牙弓另一侧的同一类型牙齿上粘结带环;(2)在一个患者组中,磨牙管分配给一种牙齿类型,在另一个患者组中,磨牙带环分配给相同牙齿类型。
论文的选择、纳入资格的判定和数据提取均独立且重复进行,不对作者、所使用的粘合剂或获得的结果设盲。所有分歧均通过讨论解决。
本综述纳入了两项偏倚风险较低的试验(n = 190),两项试验均提供了牙齿水平首次失败的数据。数据合并显示,支持磨牙带环的差异具有统计学意义,风险比为2.92(95%置信区间(CI)1.80至4.72)。两项研究之间未显示出统计学上显著的异质性。也有患者水平首次失败的数据,显示支持磨牙带环的差异具有统计学意义(风险比2.30;95%CI 1.56至3.41)(磨牙管的事件风险 = 57%;磨牙带环的事件风险25%)。一项试验提供了脱矿的数据,再次显示支持磨牙带环的差异具有统计学意义。未发现其他不良事件。
从本综述纳入的两项设计良好且偏倚风险较低的试验可知,用化学固化或光固化粘合剂粘结的磨牙管的失败率明显高于用玻璃离子水门汀粘结的磨牙带环。一项试验表明,用玻璃离子水门汀粘结的磨牙带环比用光固化粘合剂粘结的粘结磨牙管脱矿更少。然而,鉴于该结果的数据有限,需要更多证据才能得出更可靠的结论。