Background
Methods
Search methods for identification of studies
1. | exp Enamel Colour/ | |
2. | “enamel clour”.mp. | |
3. | enamel clour or enamel color.mp. | |
4. | “adhensive”.mp. | |
5. | (conventional acid-etching adj3 adhensive) or (conventional acid etching adj3 adhensive) or (self-etching primers adj3 adhensive) or (self etching primers adj3 adhensive).mp. | |
6. | “clean-up procedures” or “clean up procedures”.mp. | |
7. | Or/1-6 | |
The above subject search was linked to the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (CHSSS) for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity maximising version (2008 revision) as referenced in Chapter 6.4.11.1 and detailed in box 6.4.c of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: | ||
1. | randomized controlled trial.pt | |
2. | controlled clinical trial.pt. | |
3. | randomized.ab | |
4. | placebo.ab. | |
5. | drug therapy.fs. | |
6. | randomly.ab. | |
7. | trial.ab. | |
8. | groups.ab. | |
9. | or/1-8 | |
10. | exp animals/not humans.sh. | |
11. | 9 not 10 |
Selection of studies
Types of studies
Participants
Interventions
Outcome measures
Data extraction and analysis
Risk of bias | Interpretation | Within a study | Across studies |
---|---|---|---|
Low risk of bias | Plausible bias unlikely to seriously alter the results | Low risk of bias for all key domains | Most information is from studies at low risk of bias |
Unclear risk of bias | Plausible bias that raises some doubt about the results | Unclear risk of bias for one or more key domains | Most information is from studies at low or unclear risk of bias |
High risk of bias | Plausible bias that seriously weakens confidence in the results | High risk of bias for one or more key domains | The proportion of information from studies at high risk of bias is sufficient to affect the interpretation of results |
Results
Study selection and description of studies
Authors, year | Study design | Participants size, gender, age | Intervention, end point | Outcome measure | Outcome and authors conclusions | Imaging parameters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Karamouzos 2010 [25] | Prospective split-mouth design | 26 patients (13 girls, 13 boys) a mean age of 13 years 7 months (SD, 2.9 years) | Adhesives—chemically cured (System 11, Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA) and light-cured (Transbond XT, 3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) | The resultant color differences (DE) between the interval groups were calculated | Chemically cured resin was associated with greater color changes than light-cured composite | The reflectance spectrophotometer SpectroShade (LUA005, MHT Optic Research AG, Zurich, Switzerland; software version, 2.20) |
End point: end of active treatment | ||||||
Eliades 2001 [23] | Prospective split-mouth design | Group I:15 | No-mix adhesive resin (Unite, 3 M, Monrovia, CA, USA) chemically cured (GC Fuji Ortho, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) | The resultant color differences (DE) between the interval groups were calculated | The highest differences were recorded for the baseline-debonding interval for both adhesives used. No difference was found with respect to E between adhesive materials. | Artificial accelerated photo-ageing |
Group II:15 | ||||||
Trakyali 2009 [26] | RCT | Group 1:15 | Transbond XT Light cure adhesive 3 M Unitek, | The resultant color differences (DE) between the interval groups were calculated | Color changes of orthodontic bonding systems induced by photoageing cannot be clinically observed. | Artificial accelerated photoageing |
Group 2:15 | ||||||
Group 3:15 | Monrovia, CA, USA | |||||
Group 4:15 | Eagle Bond American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, USA | |||||
Group 5:15 | ||||||
Polishing with Stainbuster eliminates enamel surface roughness, which may improve light reflection. | ||||||
Blugloo Ormco, Scafati, Italy | ||||||
Light bond Reliance Orthodontic Products Inc., Itasca, Illinois, USA | ||||||
Unite 3 M Unitek | ||||||
Boncuk 2014 [22] | RCT | Of the 175 teeth, 25 served as control specimens. | Group 1 (control). untreated | CIE (Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage) L*a*b* color system | Orthodontic treatment alters the original color of enamel, and both the adhesive system and the resin-removal methods are responsible for this change. When brackets are bonded with the etch-and-rinse system or the SEP, cleaning the adhesive residuals with Stainbuster burs is recommended for minimal change. | handheld spectrophotometer (SpectroShade |
Group 2. Enamel was etched with 37% orthophosphoric acid ,Transbond XT Adhesive Primer (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) | ||||||
Group 3. A self-etch adhesive system (Transbond Self-Etching Primer [SEP]; 3 M Unitek) was used in conjunction with Transbond XT Adhesive Resin as with group 2. | ||||||
Group 4. | ||||||
20% polyacrylic acid, the brackets were bonded with light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji Ortho LC; GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan). | ||||||
The remaining were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 150 each) with respect to the adhesive tested | Micro; | |||||
MHT, Verona, Italy | ||||||
Joo 2011 [24] | RCT | Teeth specimens were randomly divided into 9 groups of 15 teeth | Group 1: Control | CIE (Commission Internationale de | The self-etching primers system would show less stain | reflection spectrophotometer (CM- 3500d, Minolta, Osaka, Japan) |
Group 2: Transbond-F (3 M Unitek) | ||||||
Group 3: Transbond-FP (3 M Unitek) | l’Eclairage) L*a*b* color system | susceptibility if the thin residual adhesive resin layer after debonding is removed by polishing | ||||
Group 4: Ortho Solo-F (Ormco Corp, Glendora, CA) | ||||||
Group 5: Ortho Solo-FP (Ormco Corp, Glendora, CA) | ||||||
Group 6: Transbond Plus-F (3 M Unitek) | ||||||
Group 7: Transbond Plus-FP (3 M Unitek) | ||||||
Group 8: Prompt L-Pop-F (3 M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) | ||||||
Group 9: Prompt L-Pop-FP (3 M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) |