Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Feb 23;2(2):CD008236.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub3.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment

Declan T Millett et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: 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. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same.

Objectives: 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.

Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria: 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, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was 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 had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group.

Data collection and analysis: 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.

Main results: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declan T Millett: none known. Nicky A Mandall: none known. Rye CR Mattick: none known. Joy Hickman: none known. Anne‐Marie Glenny: none known. Anne‐Marie Glenny is an editor with Cochrane Oral Health.

Figures

1
1
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 1 Failure at tooth level.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 2 Failure at participant level.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Molar tubes versus molar bands, Outcome 3 Decalcification (participant level).

Update of

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Banks 2007a {published data only}
    1. Banks P, Macfarlane TV. Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Orthodontics 2007;34(2):128‐36. - PubMed
Nazir 2011 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Nazir M, Walsh T, Mandall NA, Matthew S, Fox D. Banding versus bonding of first permanent molars: a multi‐centre randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthodontics 2011;38(2):81‐9. [DOI: 10.1179/14653121141308] - DOI - PubMed

Additional references

Aljubouri 2004
    1. Aljubouri YD, Millett DT, Gilmour WH. Six and 12 months' evaluation of a self‐etching primer versus two‐stage etch and prime for orthodontic bonding: a randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Orthodontics 2004;26(6):565‐71. - PubMed
Banks 2007
    1. Banks P, Thiruvenkatachari B. Long‐term evaluation of bracket failure with a self‐etching primer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Orthodontics 2007;34(4):243‐51. - PubMed
Benson 2005
    1. Benson PE, Shah AA, Millett DT, Dyer F, Parkin N, Vine RS. Fluorides, orthodontics and demineralization: a systematic review. Journal of Orthodontics 2005;32(2):102‐14. - PubMed
Chestnutt 2006
    1. Chestnutt IG, Burden DJ, Steele JG, Pitts NB, Nuttall NM, Morris AJ. The orthodontic condition of children in the United Kingdom, 2003. British Dental Journal 2006;200(11):609‐12. - PubMed
Deans 2009
    1. Deans J, Playle R, Durning P, Richmond S. An exploratory study of the cost‐effectiveness of orthodontic care in seven European countries. European Journal of Orthodontics 2009;31(1):90‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Geiger 1983
    1. Geiger AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ. Bond failure rates of facial and lingual attachments. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1983;17(3):165‐9. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hodges 2001
    1. Hodges SJ, Gilthorpe MS, Hunt NP. The effect of micro‐etching on the retention of orthodontic molar bands: a clinical trial. European Journal of Orthodontics 2001;23(1):91‐7. - PubMed
Johnston 1998
    1. Johnston CD, Burden DJ, Hussey DL, Mitchell CA. Bonding to molars: the effect of etch time (an in vitro study). European Journal of Orthodontics 1998;20(2):195‐9. - PubMed
Keim 2008a
    1. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2008;42(11):625‐40. - PubMed
Keim 2008b
    1. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 2: breakdown of selected variables. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2008;42(12):699‐710. - PubMed
Knoll 1986
    1. Knoll M, Gwinnett AJ, Wolff MS. Shear strength of brackets bonded to anterior and posterior teeth. American Journal of Orthodontics 1986;89(6):476‐9. - PubMed
Kumar 2006
    1. Kumar S, Williams AC, Sandy JR. Orthognathic treatment: how much does it cost?. European Journal of Orthodontics 2006;28(6):520‐8. - PubMed
Mandall 2002
    1. Mandall NA, Millett DT, Mattick CR, Hickman J, Worthington HV, Macfarlane TV. Orthodontic adhesives: a systematic review. Journal of Orthodontics 2002;29(3):205‐10. - PubMed
Mandall 2003
    1. Mandall NA, Hickman J, Macfarlane TV, Mattick RCR, Millett DT, Worthington HV. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002282] - DOI - PubMed
Manzanera 2009
    1. Manzanera D, Monteil‐Company JM, Almerich‐Silla JM, Gandia JL. Orthodontic treatment need in Spanish schoolchildren: an epidemiological study using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need. European Journal of Orthodontics 2009;31(2):180‐3. - PubMed
Marques 2007
    1. Marques CR, Couto GB, Orestes Cardoso S. Assessment of orthodontic treatment needs in Brazilian schoolchildren according to the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI). Community Dental Health 2007;24(3):145‐8. - PubMed
Mattick 2000
    1. Mattick CR, Hobson RS. A comparative micro‐topographic study off the buccal enamel of different tooth types. Journal of Orthodontics 2000;27(2):143‐8. - PubMed
McCabe 1998
    1. McCabe JF. Resin‐modified glass‐ionomers. Biomaterials 1998;19(6):521‐7. - PubMed
Millett 1994
    1. Millett DT, Gordon PH. A 5‐year clinical review of bond failure with a no‐mix adhesive (Right on). European Journal of Orthodontics 1994;16(3):203‐11. - PubMed
Millett 1995
    1. Millett DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, Carter NE, Gordon PH. The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. British Journal of Orthodontics 1995;22(2):161‐9. - PubMed
Millett 1996
    1. Millett DT, McCabe. Orthodontic bonding with glass ionomer cements: a review. European Journal of Orthodontics 1996;18(4):385‐99. - PubMed
Millett 1999
    1. Millett DT, Hallgren A, Fornell AC, Robertson M. Bonded molar tubes: a retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999;115(6):667‐74. - PubMed
Millett 2001
    1. Millett DT, Letters S, Roger E, Cummings A, Love J. Bonded molar tubes: an in vitro evaluation. Angle Orthodontist 2001;71(5):380‐5. - PubMed
Millett 2007
    1. Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick RCR, Hickman J, Mandall NA. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Millett 2009
    1. Millett D, Mandall N, Hickman J, Mattick R, Glenny AM. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. A systematic review. Angle Orthodontist 2009;79(1):193‐9. - PubMed
O'Brien 1993
    1. O'Brien KD, Shaw WC, Roberts CT. The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. British Journal of Orthodontics 1993;20(1):25‐35. - PubMed
Pandis 2005
    1. Pandis N, Christensen L, Eliades T. Long‐term clinical failure rate of molar tubes with a self‐etching primer. Angle Orthodontist 2005;75(6):1000‐2. - PubMed
Pandis 2006
    1. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. A comparative assessment of the failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self‐etching primer and conventional acid‐etching. World Journal of Orthodontics 2006;7(1):41‐4. - PubMed
Panula 2002
    1. Panula K, Keski‐Nisula L, Keski‐Nisula K, Oikarinen K, Keski‐Nisula S. Costs of surgical‐orthodontic treatment in community hospital care: an analysis of the different phases of treatment. International Journal of Adult Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery 2002;17(4):297‐306. - PubMed
Pietila 1998
    1. Pietila T, Sintonen H, Pietila I, Widstrom E, Varrela J, Alanen P. Cost and productivity analysis of orthodontic care in Finland. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 1998;26(4):283‐8. - PubMed
Richmond 1993
    1. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Stephens CD, Webb WG, Roberts CT, Andrews M. Orthodontics in the general dental service of England and Wales: a critical assessment of standards. British Dental Journal 1993;174(9):315‐29. - PubMed
Stirrups 1991
    1. Stirrups DR. A comparative clinical trial of a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. British Journal of Orthodontics 1991;18(1):15‐20. - PubMed
Van Wyk 2005
    1. Wyk PJ, Drummond RJ. Orthodontic status and treatment need of 12‐year‐old children in South Africa using the Dental Aesthetic Index. Journal of the South African Dental Association 2005;60(8):334‐6, 338. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Millett 2011
    1. Millett DT, Mandall NA, Mattick RCR, Hickman J, Glenny AM. Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources