|
|
||||||||
Scientific Section |
1 Department of Orthodontics, St Luke's Hospital, Little Horton Lane, Bradford, UK
2 Sub-unit for Medical Statistics, Epidemiology & Health Services Research, 7175 Clarendon Road, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical failure rates of brackets bonded using a prototype hydrophilic primer, designed to be insensitive to moisture, with brackets bonded with a conventional primer.
Design: Single centre randomised controlled clinical study. Thirty-three patients were bonded using a split mouth technique: randomly allocating the hydrophilic primer to one side of the mouth and a conventional primer to the other.
Setting: Hospital orthodontic department, Bradford, UK.
Subjects: Orthodontic patients requiring fixed appliances
Main outcome measures: The site and time to bond failure was recorded for each bracket that failed over 6 months.
Results: Using survival analysis, there was an increased risk of bracket failure when bonded with the hydrophilic primer compared with the conventional primer (hazard ratio = 22, 95% confidence interval: 11 to 45, P = 001).
Conclusions: This hydrophilic primer cannot be recommended for routine clinical use.
Key words: Hydrophilic Primer, Moisture Insensitive Primer, Orthodontic Bonding, Randomised Controlled Trial
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. Elekdag-Turk, D. Isci, N. Ozkalayci, and T. Turk Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2009; 31(1): 84 - 89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. S. Russell, S. J. Littlewood, A. Blance, and L. Mitchell The efficacy of a plasma arc light in orthodontic bonding: a randomized controlled clinical trial J. Orthod., September 1, 2008; 35(3): 202 - 209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. A. Wenger, S. Deacon, and N. W. T. Harradine A randomized control clinical trial investigating orthodontic bond failure rates when using Orthosolo universal bond enhancer compared to a conventional bonding primer J. Orthod., March 1, 2008; 35(1): 27 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Wendl, H. Droschl, and P. Muchitsch Indirect bonding--a new transfer method Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2008; 30(1): 100 - 107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Reis, J. E. d. Santos, A. D. Loguercio, and J. R. de Oliveira Bauer Eighteen-month bracket survival rate: conventional versus self-etch adhesive Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2008; 30(1): 94 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Manning, S. M. Chadwick, D. Plunkett, and T. V. Macfarlane A randomized clinical trial comparing 'one-step' and 'two-step' orthodontic bonding systems J. Orthod., December 1, 2006; 33(4): 276 - 283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Murfitt, A. Quick, M. Swain, and G. Herbison A randomised clinical trial to investigate bond failure rates using a self-etching primer Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2006; 28(5): 444 - 449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Mavropoulos, A. Karamouzos, G. Kolokithas, and A. E. Athanasiou In vivo evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial J. Orthod., June 1, 2003; 30(2): 139 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |