A clinical retrospective evaluation of 2 orthodontic band cements.

This study aimed to compare the time to first failure of stainless steel orthodontic first permanent molar bands cemented with either a modified composite (Band-Lok, Reliance Orthodontic Products) or a conventional glass ionomer cement (AquaCem, De Trey Dentsply). The effect of patient sex, patient age at the start of treatment, the presenting malocclusion, treatment mechanics, and the operator proficiency on band survival was also assessed. Data for 219 bands cemented with Band-Lok in 108 patients and for 395 bands cemented with AquaCem in 183 patients were analyzed. For each case, a single molar band, either the band that was first to fail or the band that had the shortest follow-up time, was chosen for analysis. For each cement, whether headgear was used or not, there was no significant difference in time to first band failure (P = .398). Twenty-six percent of patients had at least one band failure with Band-Lok, and 30% of patients had at least one band failure with AquaCem, representing an 18% band failure rate for each cement. There was no significant difference in time to first band failure for either cement with respect to sex of the patient (P = .842), patient age at the start of treatment (P = .257), presenting malocclusion (P = .319), or operator proficiency (P = .062). The use of headgear, however, reduced significantly the time to first band failure irrespective of cement type (P = .0069). Headgear use was identified as a predictor of first permanent molar band survival. Clinical performance of bands cemented with either cement appears to be similar and was influenced significantly by the use of headgear.

A comparative clinical trial of a compomer and a resin adhesive for orthodontic bonding.

The study aimed to compare the survival time and cariostatic potential of a compomer to that of a resin adhesive when used to bond stainless steel orthodontic brackets to labial segment teeth only. The effect of the patients' sex, age at the start of treatment and presenting malocclusion on bracket survival time was assessed also. Forty-five consecutive patients who attended for fixed appliance therapy were randomly selected. Four hundred twenty-six brackets were bonded (213 with compomer and 213 with resin adhesive) with a split mouth design; the right or left side allocation of compomer in either arch was alternated. Color transparencies of the maxillary incisors, mandibular incisors, or both, and transparencies of the canines, were taken before treatment. At the debond stage, the transparencies were projected (20x) and assessed by an experienced examiner, who used a caries index. The survival time distributions for brackets bonded with each bonding agent were not significantly different (P = .74, paired Prentice-Wilcoxon test; P = .75, Akritas test), with bracket failure rates of 17% and 20% recorded for compomer and resin adhesive, respectively. Neither the patients' sex (P = .85) nor malocclusion (P = .26) appear to affect significantly bracket survival, but patient age was identified as a useful prognostic indicator of bracket survival (P < .001). On average, there was more decalcification related to brackets bonded with resin adhesive than with compomer (P = .0075). Survival time distributions of brackets bonded with compomer or resin adhesive appear comparable, but decalcification was reduced significantly by bonding with compomer.