Division of Public Oral Health, Faculty of Health Science, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd., Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Feb;16(1):1-14. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0626-8. Epub 2011 Oct 18.
The aim of this systematic review was to establish whether the clinical debonding (failure) rates of orthodontic brackets bonded either with resin-modified glass ionomer (RM-GIC) or with composite resin adhesive are the same. Five databases were searched for articles up to 18 November 2010. Inclusion criteria were titles/abstracts relevant to the review question and two or more arm clinical trial. Exclusion criteria were the following: no computable data recorded and subjects of both groups not followed up in the same way. From the accepted trials, datasets were analysed concerning clinical precision and internal validity. Eleven trials were accepted. From these, 15 dichotomous datasets were extracted. Relative risk with 95% confidence interval of nine datasets showed no statistically significant differences in outcome between the treatment and control group after 6 months-1.32 years. Five showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05), favouring resin composite bonding after 12 and 18 months. One favoured RM-GIC after 10 months. Meta-analysis found no difference in the failure rate between the two treatment groups after 12 months (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42; p = 0.40) and found in favour of composite resin adhesive after >14 months (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.60-3.17; p < 0.00001). All trials had poor internal validity due to selection and detection/performance bias risk. The current evidence suggests no difference between the types of materials after 12 months but favours composite resin adhesives after a >14-month period. However, its risk of selection and detection/performance bias are high, and all results need to be regarded with caution. Further high quality randomised control trials addressing this topic are needed. The clinical relevance of this study is that RM-GIC may have the same clinical debonding (failure) rate as composite resin adhesives after 1 year when used for bonding of orthodontic brackets.
本系统评价的目的在于确定正畸托槽用树脂改良型玻璃离子水门汀(RM-GIC)或复合树脂黏结剂黏结后临床脱落(失败)率是否相同。我们检索了截至 2010 年 11 月 18 日的 5 个数据库中的相关文章。纳入标准为与综述问题相关的标题/摘要和至少有 2 个组的临床试验。排除标准为:未记录可计算数据和两组对象的随访方式不同。从被接受的试验中,我们对数据集进行了临床精度和内部有效性分析。共接受了 11 项试验。从中提取了 15 个二项数据集。9 个数据集的相对风险(RR)及其 95%置信区间(CI)显示,治疗组和对照组在 6 个月-1.32 年的随访结果无统计学差异。5 个数据集显示统计学差异(p<0.05),12 个月和 18 个月时黏结复合树脂具有统计学优势。1 个数据集在 10 个月时有利于 RM-GIC。荟萃分析发现,12 个月时两种治疗组的脱落率无差异(RR,1.11;95%CI,0.87-1.42;p=0.40),14 个月后黏结复合树脂具有统计学优势(RR,2.25;95%CI,1.60-3.17;p<0.00001)。所有试验由于选择和检测/表现偏倚风险,内部有效性都较低。目前的证据表明,12 个月后两种材料之间无差异,但 14 个月后黏结复合树脂具有统计学优势。然而,其选择和检测/表现偏倚的风险较高,所有结果都需要谨慎看待。需要进一步开展高质量的随机对照试验来解决这一问题。本研究的临床意义在于,RM-GIC 用于正畸托槽黏结时,1 年后的临床脱落(失败)率与复合树脂黏结剂相同。