title: In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. The effect of pumicing on the in vivo use of a resin modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement and a conventional no-mix composite for bonding orthodontic brackets. Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. A clinical study of glass ionomer cement. Decalcification and bond failure: A comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. 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 comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets Part 1: Wetting with water. A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. A Clinical Investigation of the Effects of Omission of Pumice Prophylaxis on Band and Bond Failure An in vivo investigation into the use of resin-modified glass poly(alkenote) cements as orthodontic bonding agents. A comparison of in vitro enamel demineralization potential of 3 orthodontic cements. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. A 12-month clinical evaluation of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
abstract: Glass ionomer orthodontic adhesives cause less enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment than do traditional resin-based products . An in vivo r and omized clinical trial was performed comparing the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) adhesive with a no-mix , resin-based ( the control ) adhesive over a 12-month period . The split-mouth technique was used to analyze bracket retention , bracket failure causes , and mode of failure for both adhesives in 61 patients .  Bracket-failure rates were 10 % for the RMGI and 4 % for the resin-based adhesive . Both adhesives had 4 times more bracket failures when opposing occlusion was present . The resin-based product demonstrated a higher proportion of resin-to-enamel adhesive failures than did the RMGI . Compared with the resin-based adhesive , the RMGI-bracketed teeth showed improved clinical performance , no enamel surface loss , less enamel demineralization , and faster adhesive removal . However , the RMGI had a 2.6 times greater bracket-failure rate than did the resin-based product OBJECTIVE Pumicing of the enamel prior to direct bonding with conventional diacrylate bonding agents has been shown to be unnecessary . It is not known whether this is also the case with resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cements . The aims of this study were two-fold : ( a ) . to determine whether pumicing prior to bonding has an effect on the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC ; ( b ) . to determine whether there is a difference in the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC . Design A cross-mouth controlled clinical trial was performed on a total of 60 patients in which the variables under test were pumicing or not pumicing of the enamel prior to bonding using two different bonding agents  . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The measurement variable was bond failure over an 18-month period . RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Prior pumicing of the enamel has no effect on in vivo failure when using either a conventional diacrylate or a resin modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cement . A greater number of bonds failed with the resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cement The objectives of this study were ( 1 ) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive ( Fuji Ortho LC ; GC America , Alsip , Ill ) after conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive ( Light Bond ; Reliance Orthodontic Products , Itasca , Ill ) bonded with 37 % phosphoric acid , ( 2 ) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives , ( 3 ) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index ( ARI ) , and ( 4 ) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid , with scanning electron microscopy . In the in vitro study , 50 extracted premolars were r and omly divided into 4 groups : brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours . Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min . Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test . The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were r and omly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique . Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years . Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function . The in vitro study results showed significant differences ( P < .05 ) among the adhesives and the debond times . Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours ( 18.46 + /- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 + /- 1.85 MPa ) and 30 minutes ( 16.19 + /- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 + /- 1.93 MPa ) . Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive ( 4.9 vs 4.1 ) . For the in vivo study , no significant differences in failure rate , sex , or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives . These results suggest that , compared with conventional resin , brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro . However , similar survival rates of the 2 material s studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinical ly . The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) with a composite resin when used for direct bonding of st and ard edgewise orthodontic brackets . Fourteen patients ( 10 females , four males ) , in whom 242 teeth were bonded with brackets , were divided into two groups : GIC ( 121 teeth ) and composite ( 121 teeth ) . The brackets were allocated to alternate quadrants and first-time failures were recorded over a period of 24 months . Data were analysed statistically ( non-parametric chi-squared test ) . The results demonstrated a significantly lower unp review ed debonding index ( UDI ) ( 15.7 per cent ) for the composite than for the GIC ( 28.1 per cent ) ( P = 0.042 ) . The use of heavy archwires was largely responsible for this difference . No difference was observed when light and medium archwires were used . GIC may be a viable alternative to composite for use with light archwires and with limited treatment objectives Decalcification during orthodontic treatment is a serious problem . A glass ionomer agent is now available to bond orthodontic brackets as an alternative to composite resins . This prospect i ve study was a clinical trial to determine if a glass ionomer bonding system ( Fuji Ortho LC ) decreases the incidence of decalcification without increasing the amount of bonding failures . A prospect i ve clinical trial with 16 patients encompassing a total of 298 teeth was conducted . The 149 control teeth were bonded with a light-cured composite resin ( Reliance Light Bond ) whereas the 149 experimental teeth were bonded with the light-cured glass ionomer agent .  Patients were followed for a period of 12 to 14 months . All teeth were evaluated for breakage ( bonding failure rate ) , and all maxillary anterior teeth ( 96 ) were evaluated for decalcification on a grade d scale . The glass ionomer failure rate was 24.8 % , and was higher than the composite resin failure rate of 7.4 % ( P < .001 ) . There were more glass ionomer bond failures in 12 of 16 patients ( P < .001 ) . Enamel decalcification was similar in the 2 bonding systems The purpose s of this investigation were to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets when bonded onto : a ) dry teeth and b ) teeth soaked with saliva . The two bonding agents were compared using a split-mouth design . In that , both systems were used for direct bonding of stainless steel brackets in every patient . Thirty-eight consecutive patients with fixed appliances were followed for a period of 12 months . The patients were r and omly divided into two groups : group A ( 11 patients ) and group B ( 27 patients ) . In group A , the performance of 220 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 110 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial Co. , Tokyo , Japan ) onto dry teeth , and 110 bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco Corp. , Glendora , CA ) . In group B , the performance of 540 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 270 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho onto teeth soaked with saliva , and 270 bonded with System 1 + . In group A , GC Fuji Ortho recorded an overall failure rate ( 34.5 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than System 1 + ( 9 % ) when applied onto completely dry teeth . Conversely , in group B , no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates of the two bonding agents were found when GC Fuji Ortho was used on teeth soaked with saliva . It was concluded , therefore , that GC Fuji Ortho shows clinical ly acceptable bond strengths when bonded onto moist teeth , but not when used on dry enamel . Both bonding agents failed mostly at the enamel/adhesive interface , without causing any enamel damage The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in a split mouth design , by using both systems for direct bonding of orthodontic stainless steel brackets in every patient . Forty eight patients ( 34 females and 14 males , of which 29 were adults > 18 years of age ) with fixed appliances were followed for a mean period of 10 months ( range 4 - 16 months ) . The performance of 864 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 404 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial , Tokyo , Japan ) onto teeth soaked with water , and 460 were bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco , Glendora , CA ) . System 1 + recorded an overall failure rate ( 18.2 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho ( 7.9 % ) . There were no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates in the upper and lower arches with either material . Both in the upper and lower arches , System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho . When the bonding performance of the six anterior teeth was compared with first and second premolars , no statistically significant differences were found ( p > 0.05 ) between bonding agents in either arch . System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho , both in the anterior and posterior segments . Both bonding agents failed mainly at the enamel-adhesive interface , without causing any damage to the enamel A new self-curing ( chemically cured ) resin-modified glass-ionomer cement , Fuji Ortho ( GC International ) , is based on the technology of hybrid glass-ionomer restorative material s and features chemical adhesion to tooth structure and long-term fluoride release . This article describes a 12-month clinical evaluation of  Fuji Ortho for the direct bonding of orthodontic ( metal ) brackets with System 1 + ( Ormco Corp. ) as a control . Three failures of Fuji Ortho occurred from a sample of 60 ( 5 % ) , with five failures of the composite resin from a sample of 60 ( 8.3 % ) . No statistical significance was seen between these results . Fuji Ortho is a satisfactory adhesive for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets where there are no occlusal interferences The clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets was compared with a composite resin routinely used in this procedure . Brackets were bonded , using both material s , in alternate quadrants of 16 patients of the Orthodontic Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro . A total of 225 teeth , 112 in the glass ionomer cement group and 113 in the composite group , were tested .  Bond failure frequencies were recorded for 12 months , and chi-square statistical test was carried out comparing the failure rates of the material s. The composite showed a statistically significant lower failure rate ( 7.96 % ) than the glass ionomer cement ( 50.89 % ) , regardless of the dental arch tested . Although the glass ionomer cement presents important properties not observed in the composite , it is necessary to increase its cohesive strength to permit its clinical use for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets Since the last comprehensive review of anticoagulation in acute myocardial infa rct ion four additional r and omized control trials have been reported . The overwhelming majority of all trials favored anticoagulation .  Rates of thromboembolism were higher in the control , and hemorrhagic complications in the anticoagulated group . Pooling of all r and omized control trials gives mean case fatality rates of 19.6 % for the control and 15.4 % for the anticoagulated group , a relative reduction of 21 % ( P less than 0.05 or less than 0.001 , depending on the analytic method ) . Five of six r and omized control trials reported " no effect " because the difference favoring anticoagulation was not statistically significant . However , sample sizes in these " negative " papers were too small to protect against missing a 21 % reduction in true case fatality rate due to anticoagulation ( beta greater than 0.10 ) . All patients who present no specific contraindication should receive  anticoagulants  during hospitalization for infa rct ion One hundred and twelve first molar b and s and 614 directly bonded brackets on incisor , canine , and premolar teeth were included in a clinical trail to investigate the importance of omission of pumice prophylaxis at the time of b and ing and bonding , on their possible subsequent failure . Half of the sample were selected for the non-pumiced test groups using a r and om number allocation method , the remaining pumiced teeth acting as control groups . Two etch times were used for the direct bonding part of the study , 15 and 60 seconds , with non-pumiced test and pumiced control groups included within both etch-time groups . Results showed no statistical difference in the failure rate of attachments in either test or control groups during the course of treatment . The different etch times had no significant effects in the direct bonding part of the study The aim of this study was to investigate the in vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets using two resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cements and to compare them with a conventional light-cured diacrylate bonding agent .  Twenty consecutive patients attending for bond up appointments took part in this r and omized cross-mouth control study . Alternate quadrants were bonded with either Fuji Ortho LC or 3 M Multi-Cure . Transbond [ Adhesive Pre-Coated Brackets ( APC ) ] acted as the control in the other quadrants . Failed brackets were rebonded with the same material . Bond failure rates were collected over a 1-year period . The bond failure rates over 1 year were 7.2 per cent for Transbond ( APC ) , 5.9 per cent for 3 M Multi-Cure , and 5.8 per cent for Fuji Ortho LC . Statistically , there was no significant difference between the bond failure rates of the material s and there was no effect of time . This clinical investigation confirmed the suitability of the resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cements under test as orthodontic bonding agents The objective of this in vitro study was to compare resistance to enamel demineralization after b and ing with 3 orthodontic cements . The 3 orthodontic cement groups and the nonb and ed control group were evaluated for cariopreventive potential .  One hundred twenty extracted human molars were selected for b and ing , embedded in resin blocks , and r and omly assigned to the following 4 groups : zinc phosphate cement , zinc polycarboxylate cement , resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) , and nonb and ed control . Orthodontic b and s were placed and cemented ; specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C for 30 days , thermocycled for 24 hours , and then deb and ed with a customized b and -removal device attached to a universal testing machine . The cement was h and removed , and 2 coats of nail varnish were applied to the teeth , leaving a 2 x 2-mm window exposed on the buccal surface of the mesiobuccal cusp . The teeth were stored in lactic acid-gelatin solution for 4 weeks at 37 degrees C to develop simulated white spot decalcification in the window . The teeth were subjected to dye ( 10 % methylene blue ) for 24 hours and then sectioned through the window . The depth of dye penetration was determined and used as a measure of the cariopreventive effect of the b and ing cement . Data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and a Tukey test for the multiple comparisons . Dye penetration occurred as follows : the zinc phosphate and control groups were about the same ; there was less dye penetration with the zinc polycarboxylate , and the least with the resin-modified glass ionomer . The 2 fluoride-releasing cements ( zinc polycarboxylate and RMGI ) demonstrated less demineralization than the zinc phosphate in vitro and might provide greater protection from demineralization around a b and periphery in clinical setting The purpose of this study was to compare the debonding force of orthodontic brackets bonded with two conventional resin adhesives ( Resilience L3 and Light Bond ) and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ) . For the in vitro part of the study , 80 extracted premolars were r and omly divided into four groups . In groups A and B , brackets were bonded to unetched enamel using Fuji Ortho LC cement in wet and dry conditions , respectively . In groups C and D , brackets were bonded to etched enamel using Resilience L3 and Light Bond , respectively .  Debonding force was determined using a servohydraulic testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min . Data was analyzed using the ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test at p<0.05 . A significant difference was found in debonding force between unetched Fuji Ortho LC and the two conventional resins . There was no significant difference between the two conventional resins or between unetched resin-reinforced glass ionomer in the wet and dry conditions . For the in vivo part of the study , 30 patients were r and omly assigned to one of the three bonding material groups . Bracket survival rates and distributions were obtained by following these patients for 1.2 years . Data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function . Bond failure interface was determined using a modified adhesive remnant index ( ARI ) . These results showed no significant difference between survival rates and distributions among the three bonding material s with respect to the type of malocclusion , type of orthodontic treatment , or location of bracket . There were significant differences between survival distributions of males and females in the unetched Fuji Ortho LC group and among type of teeth in the conventional resin groups . The predominant mode of bracket failure for the unetched Fuji Ortho LC cement was at the enamel-adhesive interface , and for conventional resins , the enamel-adhesive interface and the bracket-adhesive interface . These results suggest that resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement can withst and occlusal and orthodontic forces despite having a bond strength lower than that of conventional resin adhesives Glass polyalkenoate cements have the unique properties of physicochemically bonding to enamel and base metals and to leach fluoride over prolonged periods . These cements have been modified to provide a dual setting with both light activation and chemical cure to produce a more rapid set . This article reports a 12-month clinical trial of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets , compared with a st and ard composite bonding adhesive . There was no significant difference in failure rates of direct bonded orthodontic brackets cemented with Fuji II LC light-activated glass polyalkenoate cement ( GC Industrial Co. , Tokyo , Japan ) ( 3.3 % ) compared with System I+ composite bonding resin ( Ormco Corp. , Glendora , Calif. ) ( 1.6 % ) This study evaluated the clinical performance of a new resin modified glass ionomer cement , Geristore ( Den-Mat Corp. , Santa Maria , Calif. ) , for the bonding of orthodontic brackets and its effect on certain caries-associated microorganisms . This cement has been shown to possess increased mechanical properties and long-term fluoride release . There were 716 brackets bonded in 40 patients ( 17 males and 23 females ) , with a split-mouth technique and a composite resin , Phase II ( Reliance , Itasca , III . )  , as a control . Bond failures were recorded up to 1 year . Plaque scores and plaque sample s were taken from the area of the bonding adhesive in 20 patients , before , at 1 week , and 5 months after the placement of brackets . The plaque sample s were investigated for the presence of Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli . The overall bond failure rate was found to be 8.9 % for Geristore and 3.1 % for Phase II ( p < 0.05 ) . Labially , there was no significant difference ( p > 0.05 ) in bond failure rate : 3.8 % for Geristore and 1.7 % for Phase II . The proportions of S. mutans and lactobacilli in plaque taken from around Geristore cement were reduced at 1 week and 5 months , when compared with Phase II resin , and this reduction was statistically significant ( p < 0.05 ) at 1 week . Results of this study suggest that Geristore may be of use in the labial segments , especially in caries prone patients , in whom demineralization at debond may present an esthetic and restorative problem several years after treatment The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of r and omised controlled trials . Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version , CONSORT 2010 , which up date s the reporting guideline based on new method ological evidence and accumulating experience . To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement , this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet , Obstetrics and Gynecology , PLoS Medicine , Annals of Internal Medicine , Open Medicine , Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , BMC Medicine , and Trials
target: The current evidence suggests no difference between the types of material s after 12 months but favours composite resin adhesives after a > 14-month period .
  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
background: 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 .