Survival analysis of brackets and tubes:A twelve-month assessment

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical performance of brackets bonded to anterior and posterior teeth, including second molars. Materials and Methods: One operator, using the straight-wire technique, bonded metallic brackets to the teeth of 127 consecutive patients. All patients were observed for 12 months during their regular orthodontic appointments. Bracket failures were recorded and summarized for statistical analysis. The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to evaluate bracket failure rates. Results: Statistically significant differences in survival rates were observed between molar tubes and anterior brackets (P , .05). Twelve-month failure rates of incisor, canine, premolar, and molar brackets were 3.6, 1.6, 4.8, and 11.6%, respectively. The first and second molar did not show significant difference in bond failure. Young patients (age ,18 years) showed a higher failure rate than old patients ($18 years). Conclusions: Brackets directly bonded to the buccal surfaces of molars failed significantly more often than those directly bonded to anterior teeth or premolars, but showed acceptable failure rate especially in adult patients. Bonding on second molars seems to be as reliable as bonding on the first molars.

A retrospective survey of the causes of bracket- and tube-bonding failures

“…13 In an investigation using a sample size of 128 patients, no significant difference between bracket failure rates of incisors vs premolars was found. 8 In our study, we found a significantly higher failure rate for orthodontic appliances in the mandible compared with the maxilla. This finding has been mentioned in other studies, but in this study, the difference was not statistically different.…”

“…2,3,8 For molar tubes, bonding failures between 10.6% and 13.8% were reported. 2,8 It is difficult to compare outcomes of our study with previously published studies as their materials and methods were different. However, failure rates found in this study are within the range of previously published failure rates.…”

Banding on Adolescents: Is Molar Band Height Different than Clinical Crown Height?

“…Bonding on molars have been associated with frequent attachment failures and white spot lesions. 2,3,[9][10][11] Banding is associated with gingival enlargement and increased pocket depth. 4,8,[12][13][14][15] The adolescents have more gingival enlargement than the adults.…”

“…However there is a high risk of bonding failure and white spot lesion associated with molar tubes. [2][3][4] In a very recent Cochrane review on banding versus bonding, it has been found that there is statistically significant difference on the rate of banding versus bonding failures. According to that review there is 57 % risk of attachment failure in case of bonded tubes whereas the risk is only 25 % in case Dr Dashrath Kafle, 1 Dr Aradhana Agarwal, 2 Dr Sita Shrestha, 3 Dr Biplov Adhikari of banded attachments.…”

“…[2][3][4] In a very recent Cochrane review on banding versus bonding, it has been found that there is statistically significant difference on the rate of banding versus bonding failures. According to that review there is 57 % risk of attachment failure in case of bonded tubes whereas the risk is only 25 % in case Dr Dashrath Kafle, 1 Dr Aradhana Agarwal, 2 Dr Sita Shrestha, 3 Dr Biplov Adhikari of banded attachments. 5 The review also concluded that demineralization on molars is significantly higher on bonded attachment when compared with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement.…”