A clinical study of glass ionomer cement. In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. 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 Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing ‘One-Step’ and ‘Two-Step’ Orthodontic Bonding Systems Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC. 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 performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Resin‐modified glass ionomer cement vs composite for orthodontic bonding: A multicenter, single‐blind, randomized controlled trial A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. Clinical evaluation of bond failures and survival between mandibular canine-to-canine retainers made of flexible spiral wire and fiber-reinforced composite An in vivo investigation into the use of resin-modified glass poly(alkenote) cements as orthodontic bonding agents. Enamel cracks and ceramic bracket failure during debonding in vitro. Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment with Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Material: Short-Term Results of a Pilot Study
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 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 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 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 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 Objective The primary objective of this prospect i ve clinical trial was to assess the clinical bond failure rates of orthodontic brackets bonded using a self-etching primer ( SEP ) , compared with brackets bonded using a conventional acid-etched technique with control adhesive ( Transbond ™ ) . A secondary aim was to investigate whether characteristics of the operator , patient or tooth bonded had any influence on bracket failure . Design Single-centre r and omized controlled clinical trial . Thirty-four patients were bonded , each being r and omly assigned to either the test or control adhesive . Setting NHS Hospital Orthodontic Department , Chester , UK . Subjects Orthodontic patients requiring fixed appliance treatment . Main outcome measures Bond failure . Main outcome results Failure rates over the initial 6-month period were 2.0 % ( Transbond ™ ) and 1.7 % ( SEP ) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups . Over the duration of the fixed appliance treatment , bond failure rates increased , but remained acceptable at 7.4 % ( TB ) and 7.0 % ( SEP ) , respectively . When operator , patient and tooth characteristics were analysed , only the bracket location was found to be significant . Maxillary brackets were more likely to fail than m and ibular brackets ( RR 0.47 % ; 95 % CI 0.22 , 1.03 ) . The failure rate for brackets in our study was low when compared with previous studies . Conclusions Both the acid-etched control and self-etching primer in combination with adhesive pre-coated brackets were successful for clinical bonding . Their combined failure rate was lower than that reported in similar trials The objective of this study was to compare 3  orthodontic adhesives  in the areas of shear-peel bond strength , location of adhesive failure , and extent of enamel cracking before bonding and after debonding of orthodontic brackets . The adhesives included a composite resin control ( Transbond XT ; 3M/Unitek , St Paul , Minn ) , a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ; GC America Corp , Alsip , Ill ) , and a polyacid-modified composite resin under dry and saliva-contaminated conditions ( Assure ; Reliance Orthodontic Products Inc , Itasca , Ill ) . Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal surfaces of 160 ( 4 groups of 40 ) human premolars . The bonded teeth were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 30 days and thermocycled for 24 hours before debonding with a Universal Instron ( Instron Corp , Canton , Mass ) testing machine . The extent of cracking in the buccal surfaces was evaluated under 16x magnification before bonding and after debonding . Although the bond strength of the composite resin control ( 20.19 MPa ) was significantly greater ( P < .05 ) than that of the adhesives in the other groups , clinical ly acceptable shear-peel bond strengths were found for all adhesives ( Fuji Ortho LC = 13.57 MPa , Assure-dry = 10.74 MPa , Assure-wet = 10.99 MPa ) . The bond strength for the Assure adhesive was not significantly affected by saliva contamination . The sample of extracted premolars used in this study displayed a greater frequency of buccal surface enamel cracking ( 46.7 % ) than that reported in the literature for in vivo premolars ( 7.8%-10.2 % ) , which was possibly due to the extraction process . The frequency of enamel cracking in a subset of this sample ( n = 34 ) increased from 46.4 % at prebonding to 62.4 % at postdebonding as a result of the forces of debonding 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 aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of adhesive precoated brackets ( APC ) with that of two types of uncoated bracket bases , Straight-Wire and Dyna-Lock , bonded using two types of orthodontic adhesives , Transbond XT , and Right-On .  Forty consecutive orthodontic patients entered the trial and 607 brackets were bonded . The incidence and site of first time bond failures were recorded over a period of 1 year . The time required for bonding was also recorded . The overall bond failure rate was 6.6 per cent . There were no significant differences between the failure rates of the five groups , or between the upper and lower arch . However , significantly more brackets failed on the left side than on the right . Premolar brackets were lost most often , whilst incisor brackets failed least . No association was found between bond failure and time elapsed since bonding . Bonding time was least with Right-On adhesive . There were no significant differences between bonding times using APC or Transbond . Results of the present study conflict with those of a previous ex vivo study by the authors , using the same material s and bonding technique . Suggested reasons for this are discussed 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 Introduction : In this study , we aim ed to compare the incidence of new demineralized lesions and bond failures between 2 groups of participants wearing fixed orthodontic appliances bonded with either light‐cured resin‐modified glass ionomer cement or light‐cured composite .  Methods : This trial was a multicenter ( 6 centers : 2 teaching hospitals , 4 specialist orthodontic practice s ) , single‐blinded , r and omized controlled trial with 2 parallel groups . Patients aged 11 years or older , in the permanent dentition , and about to start fixed orthodontic treatment in these 6 centers were r and omly allocated to have either resin‐modified glass ionomer cement or light‐cured composite for bonding brackets , forward of the first molars . Pretreatment and day‐of‐debond digital photographic images were taken of the teeth and assessed by up to 5 clinical and 3 lay assessors for the presence or absence of new demineralized lesions and the esthetic impact . The assessors were masked as to group allocation . Results : We r and omized 210 participants , and 197 completed the trial . There were 173 with complete before‐ and after‐digital images of the teeth . The incidence of new demineralized lesions was 24 % ; but when the esthetic impact was taken into account , this was considerably lower ( 9 % ) . There was no statistically significant difference between the bracket adhesives in the numbers with at least 1 new demineralized lesion ( risk ratio,1.25 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.74‐2.13 ; P = 0.403 ) or first‐time bracket failure ( risk ratio,0.88 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.67‐1.16 ; P = 0.35 ) . There were no adverse effects . Conclusions : There is no evidence that the use of resin modified glass ionomer cement over light‐cured composite for bonding brackets reduces the incidence of new demineralized lesions or bond failures . There might be other reasons for using resin modified glass ionomer cement . Registration : This trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov NCT01925924 . Protocol : The protocol is available from the corresponding author on request BACKGROUND The authors evaluated the 24-month performance of a packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system and a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in restorations placed in primary molars with the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART )  approach . METHODS Three dentists placed 419 restorations in 219 children aged 6 through 10 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior Class I and II primary teeth . They used a split-mouth design to place the two material s , which were assigned r and omly to contralateral sides . The authors evaluated the restorations according to U.S. Public Health Service Ryge criteria . RESULTS After 24 months , 96.7 percent of the Class I GIC restorations and 91 percent of the resin-based composite restorations survived , while the success rates for the Class II restorations were 76.1 percent and 82 percent for the GIC and resin-based composite restorations , respectively . The survival rate of the Class II resin-based composite restorations was 5.9 percent higher than that of the GIC restorations at the 24-month evaluation , but this difference was not statistically significant . However , the study results showed a statistically significant difference in survival rates between Class I and II restorations for both material s. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The two-year clinical performance of both material s was satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and II primary molars using the ART approach Objectives : The purpose of this longitudinal prospect i ve r and omized study was to evaluate the clinical reliability of two different types of postorthodontic treatment retainers : a silanised-treated glass fibers-reinforced resin composite ( FRC ) and a directly bonded multistr and ed stainless steel wire . The hypothesis of the study was to assess if significant differences are present between failure rates of the two retainers . Study Design : This prospect i ve study was based on an assessment of 87 patients ( 35 men and 52 women),with an average age of 24 years who required a lower arch fixed retainer after orthodontic treatment . Patients were divided in two groups . Assignment was carried out with r and om tables . A follow-up examination was carried out once a month . The number , cause , and date of single bond adhesive failures were recorded for both retainers over 12 months . Teeth that were rebonded after failure were not included in the success analysis . Statistical analysis was performed by means of a Fisher ’s exact test , Kaplan-Meier survival estimates , and log rank test . Results : Bond failure rate was significantly higher ( P=0.0392 ) for multistr and ed metallic wire than for FRC . Conclusions : Glass fiber-reinforced resin composite retainers and multistr and ed metallic wires showed no significant difference in single bond failure rates over a one-year follow up . Key words : Fiber reinforced composite , fixed retention , multistr and ed wire , orthodontics , retainer , splint 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 OBJECTIVE To test the null hypothesis that no difference in bracket failure characteristics is noted when use of a new ceramic bracket debonding instrument is compared with the use of conventional pliers . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty maxillary premolars were r and omly assigned to one of two groups . In group 1 , Clarity collapsible ceramic brackets ( 3 M Unitek , Monrovia , Calif ) were debonded with the use of conventional Utility/Weingart ( 3 M Unitek , Monrovia , Calif ) pliers . In group 2 , Clarity brackets were debonded with a new Debonding Instrument ( 3 M Unitek ) . For all teeth , the same bracket bonding system was used . Following debonding , teeth and brackets were examined under 10x magnification for assessment of bracket failure ( fracture ) and of residual adhesive on the enamel surface . Enamel surfaces were visualized with transillumination prior to bonding and after removal of the residual adhesive , so the effect of the debonding forces could be determined . RESULTS The results of Adhesive Remnant Index comparisons indicated that a statistically significant difference ( chi2 = 8.73 ; P = .013 ) in bond failure patterns was apparent when the two groups were compared . Brackets debonded with the new instrument showed a greater tendency for the adhesive to be removed from the tooth during debonding . CONCLUSIONS The hypothesis is rejected . Although the incidence of enamel damage following debonding was similar in the two groups , the use of the new Debonding Instrument decreased the incidence of bracket fracture 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 Objectives : The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) material in atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach and compare RMGI with the high-strength traditional glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in permanent teeth with one or more surface-carious cavities . Material s and Methods : This study was conducted in a village school in rural southeastern Anatolia , Turkey . The RMGI and GIC restorations with the ART technique were placed r and omly employing a split mouth design . In addition , the ART approach was used when necessary for both primary and /or permanent teeth with no pulpal involvement and no perceived pain before treatment . Ninety-one fillings were placed on contralateral molar pairs of 37 children . Baseline and 6-month evaluation of the fillings were made with the classic ART , modified Ryge and USPHS criteria . Results : Based on the ART criteria , 100 % of RMGI and 92.4 % of GIC restorations were classified as successful after 6 months , and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant ( p = 0.009 ) . While marginal discoloration was the commonest failure in the RMGI group according to both the modified Ryge and USPHS criteria , unsatisfactory surface texture and low anatomic form were the commonly seen failures in the ART technique . Conclusion : Generally , for each rating system , RMGI exhibited better clinical performance than GIC in all categories , except for marginal discoloration . Results based on the 6-month evaluation show that RMGI can be an alternative material to the GIC
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
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 .