A 12-month clinical comparison of resin-modified light-activated adhesives for the cementation of orthodontic molar bands. Comparison between a zinc phosphate cement and a glass ionomer cement for cementation of orthodontic bands. An in vivo and ex vivo study to evaluate the use of a glass polyphosphonate cement in orthodontic banding. A comparative clinical trial of a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. An investigation into the use of two polyacid-modified composite resins (compomers) and a resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement used to retain orthodontic bands. Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial.
A clinical trial is reported on the retention rates of resin-modified light-activated adhesives for the cementation of orthodontic molar bands. Fifty consecutive cases were fully banded and monitored over 12 months. Fuji II LC (GC International) recorded a failure rate of 2.9%, Bandlok (Reliance Orthodontic Products) 8.1%, with Ketac Cem (Espe) chemical cure 3.5%. There were no statistically significant differences between these rates. Fuji II LC and Ketac Cem failed at the interface between the adhesive and the metal, while Bandlok failed at the interface between the enamel and the adhesive. It is suggested that Fuji II LC and Ketac Cem will afford greater protection to the enamel against microleakage and demineralization than Bandlok. nan The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a new glass polyphosphonate cement (Diamond) for orthodontic banding. Thirty-one subjects underwent in vivo testing to compare the failure rate of bands cemented using the test cement and bands cemented using a conventional glass polyalkenoate cement (Ketac-Cem) over a 6-month period at the beginning of active appliance therapy. In an ex vivo experiment 60 extracted teeth were banded using either the test cement or a glass polyalkenoate cement, and subjected to a debanding force using a Lloyd universal testing machine until failure. In the in vivo study the overall proportion of failure of the bands cemented with each cement was identical at 0.048. However, in the ex vivo study the probability of failure for the glass polyphosphonate cement was significantly higher than for the glass polyalkenoate cement, and the force to deband the glass polyalkenoate cement was greater than that of the glass polyphosphonate cement. In the clinical setting the new glass polyphosphonate cement performed as well as a conventional glass polyalkenoate cement, and these results suggest that it could be used as an alternative cement for orthodontic banding. The results of the ex vivo test bring into question the usefulness of this laboratory test as an indicator of clinical performance. This is a report of a clinical trial, comparing an experimental glass ionomer luting cement with a zinc phosphate cement for securing orthodontic bands. The comparison was made by using survival analysis techniques. The glass ionomer cement performed significantly better than the zinc phosphate cement. The aim of this investigation was to determine the effectiveness of a conventional glass poly(alkenoate) cement (Intact) and newer polyacid-modified composite resin cements (Transbond Plus and Ultra Band-Lok) to retain orthodontic bands. In the in vitro part of this study, stainless steel bands were cemented to 240 extracted third molar teeth in three test groups comprising Intact, Transbond Plus and Ultra Band-Lok. The force to deband (N) for all three cements was recorded using an Instron universal testing machine after the following observation periods: 20 minutes and 3, 6 and 12 months. The results indicated that all three cements increased their median force to deband after 12 months. Of the two compomers, Transbondtrade mark Plus demonstrated the highest median force to deband at all four time intervals. In the in vivo part of the study, 30 patients participated in a randomized cross-mouth clinical trial where the molar bands were cemented in place using either Intact or Transbond Plus. Ultra Band-Lok was not used in the clinical part of the study. The results showed there to be no clinically significant difference in band failure rates between the two cements. When patients were asked to score each for taste, there was a significant difference, with the glass poly(alkenoate) cement (Intact) being more acceptable than the polyacid-modified composite Transbond Plus (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the in vitro median force to deband or in vivo band failure rates between the glass poly(alkenoate) cement and the polyacid-modified composite resins. The choice of cementing agent can therefore be made on patient factors, e.g. taste, or operator factors, e.g. ease of handling, cost and shelf life. The time to first failure, the position of band failure at deband, and the change in enamel white spot lesions of teeth bonded with a modified composite or a conventional glass ionomer were compared in a randomized half-mouth trial over the full course of orthodontic treatment. One hundred forty band pairs were cemented in 98 subjects. Overall band failure rates of 5% and 2.8% were recorded for the modified composite and the conventional glass ionomer, respectively, with no significant difference found between their times to first band failure. At the end-of-treatment deband, the position of band failure was predominantly at the enamel-cement interface for the modified composite and at the band-cement interface for the conventional glass ionomer (P <.001). A comparison of changes in mean enamel white spot lesion scores during treatment did not reveal significant differences between the cement groups (P =.16).
There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.