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
. 2018 Apr 9;4(4):CD002282.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002282.pub2.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets

Nicky A Mandall  1 , Joy Hickman, Tatiana V Macfarlane, Rye Cr Mattick, Declan T Millett, Helen V Worthington
Affiliations

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets

Nicky A Mandall et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2003. A new full search was conducted on 26 September 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 effects of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding.

Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 September 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 September 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure.

Data collection and analysis: Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of review authors. Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only.

Main results: Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cured composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.

Authors' conclusions: There is no clear evidence on which to make a clinical decision of the type of orthodontic adhesive to use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Nicky A Mandall: none known. Joy Hickman: none known. Tatiana V Macfarlane: none known. Rye CR Mattick: none known. Declan T Millett: he was not involved in the assessment of one of the included trials for which he is also an author. Helen V Worthington: none known. Helen Worthington is Co‐ordinating Editor for Cochrane Oral Health.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Millett 2000 {published data only}
    1. Millett DT, McCluskey LA, McAuley F, Creanor SL, Newell J, Love J. A comparative clinical trial of a compomer and a resin adhesive for orthodontic bonding. Angle Orthodontist 2000;70:233‐40. - PubMed
Norevall 1996 {published data only}
    1. Norevall LI, Marcusson A, Persson M. A clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as an orthodontic bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin. European Journal of Orthodontics 1996;18:373‐84. - PubMed
O'Brien 1989 {published data only}
    1. O'Brien KD, Read MJF, Sandison RJ, Roberts CT. A visible light‐activated direct‐bonding material: An in vivo comparative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1989;95:348‐51. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Ash 1996 {published data only}
    1. Ash S, Hay N. Adhesive pre‐coated brackets, a comparative clinical study. British Journal of Orthodontics 1996;23:325‐9. - PubMed
Banks 1997 {published data only}
    1. Banks PA, Burn A, O'Brien KD. A clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of including fluoride into an orthodontic bonding adhesive. European Journal of Orthodontics 1997;19:391‐5. - PubMed
Cacciafesta 1999 {published data only}
    1. Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin‐reinforced self‐cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva. Clinical Orthodontics and Research 1999;2:186‐93. - PubMed
Chung 2000 {published data only}
    1. Chung CH, Piatti A. Clinical comparison of the bond failure rates between fluoride‐releasing and non‐fluoride releasing composite resins. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2000;XXXIV:409‐12. - PubMed
DeSaeytijd 1994 {published data only}
    1. Saeytijd C De, Carels CEL, Lesaffre E. An evaluation of a light‐curing composite for bracket placement. European Journal of Orthodontics 1994;16:541‐5. - PubMed
Fricker 1992 {published data only}
    1. Fricker JP. A 12‐month clinical evaluation of a glass polyalkenoate cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1992;101:381‐4. - PubMed
Fricker 1994 {published data only}
    1. Fricker JP. A 12‐month clinical evaluation of a light‐ activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1994;105:502‐5. - PubMed
Fricker 1998 {published data only}
    1. Fricker JP. A new self‐curing resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998;113:384‐6. - PubMed
Galindo 1998 {published data only}
    1. Galindo HRA, Sadowsky PL, Vlachos C, Jacobson A, Wallace D. An in vivo comparison between a visible light‐cured bonding system and a chemically cured bonding system. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998;113:271‐5. - PubMed
Gaworski 1999 {published data only}
    1. Gaworski M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE. Decalcification and bond failure: A comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1999;116:518‐21. - PubMed
Hons 1994 {published data only}
    1. Hons I. A comparative study of four orthodontic bonding systems. A comparative study of treatment effects of two Herbst appliances (Abstract). European Journal of Orthodontics 1994;16(5):456.
Lovius 1987 {published data only}
    1. Lovius BBJ, Pender N, Hewage S, O'Dowling I, Tomkins A. A clinical trial of a light activated bonding material over an 18 month period. British Journal of Orthodontics 1987;14:11‐20. - PubMed
Miguel 1995 {published data only}
    1. Miguel JAM, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O. Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1995;107:484‐7. - PubMed
Miller 1996 {published data only}
    1. Miller JR, Arbuckle G, Baldwin J, Phillips RW. A three‐year clinical trial using a glass ionomer cement for the bonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthodontist 1996;66:309‐12. - PubMed
Mitchell 1992 {published data only}
    1. Mitchell L. An investigation into the effect of a fluoride releasing adhesive on the prevalence of enamel surface changes associated with directly bonded orthodontic attachments. British Journal of Orthodontics 1992;19:207‐14. - PubMed
Shamma 1999 {published data only}
    1. Shamma I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, et al. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin‐reinforced glass ionomer cement: An in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthodontist 1999;69:463‐9. - PubMed
Sonis 1989 {published data only}
    1. Sonis AL, Snell W. An evaluation of a fluoride‐releasing, visible light‐activated bonding system for orthodontic bracket placement. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1989;95:306‐11. - PubMed
Sunna 1998 {published data only}
    1. Sunna S, Rock WP. Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: A randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Orthodontics 1998;25:283‐7. - PubMed
Trimpaneers 1996 {published data only}
    1. Trimpaneers LM, Dermaut LR. A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of two orthodontic bonding systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1996;110:547‐50. - PubMed
Turner 1993 {published data only}
    1. Turner PJ. The clinical evaluation of a fluoride containing orthodontic bonding material. British Journal of Orthodontics 1993;20:307‐13. - PubMed
Underwood 1989 {published data only}
    1. Underwood ML, Rawls HR, Zimmerman BF. Clinical evaluation of a fluoride‐exchanging resin as an orthodontic adhesive. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1989;96:93‐9. - PubMed
Zacchrisson 1978 {published data only}
    1. Zacchrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1978;74:62‐78. - PubMed

Additional references

DPB 2000
    1. Dental Practice Board, Statistical Department, Compton Place Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK. (Correspondence) 1998.
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Scheider M, Minder CE. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Evans 1987
    1. Evans R, Shaw WC. Preliminary evaluation of an illustrated scale for rating dental attractiveness. European Journal of Orthodontics 1987;9:314‐8. - PubMed
Holmes 1992
    1. Holmes A. The prevalence of orthodontic treatment need. British Journal of Orthodontics 1992;19:177‐82. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
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 service of England and Wales. British Dental Journal 1993;20:25‐35. - 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. British Dental Journal 1993;174:315‐29. - PubMed
Russell 1999
    1. Russell JI, Pearson AI, Bowden DEJ, Wright J, O'Brien KD. The Consultant Orthodontic Service ‐ 1998 Survey. British Dental Journal 1999;187:149‐53. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

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

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources