↓ Skip to main content

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008236.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Declan T Millett, Nicky A Mandall, Rye CR Mattick, Joy Hickman, Anne-Marie Glenny

Abstract

Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 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. To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch;(2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 7 8%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 25 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,072,404
of 14,380,453 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,755
of 10,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,543
of 259,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,380,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.