{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0512341062079282, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03328347045624533, 'mean_word_length': 4.470347648261758, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of self-etch primers with conventional acid-etch technique for bonding brackets in orthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND
Bonding with self-etch primers (SEPs) is one of the most popular systems for attaching orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface. There are conflicting reports about the efficacy and success of these systems compared with acid-etch (AE) bonding.


OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare SEP with conventional AE technique for bonding brackets in fixed orthodontics.


SEARCH METHODS
Articles related to the subject of interest were searched in electronic databases, including PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane's CENTRAL, from inception to 2 June 2021. Search for grey literature, and hand search for relevant studies were also performed.


SELECTION CRITERIA
Based on the PICO model, randomized clinical trials using full-arch bonded fixed orthodontic appliances comparing SEP and conventional AE systems were included in the review process.


DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
After assessing the risk of bias, data from the included studies were extracted using custom piloted forms. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of bracket failure, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and bonding time.


RESULTS
Nineteen randomized clinical trials were included in the systematic review and 17 randomized clinical trials [5 parallel-group (PG) and 12 split-mouth (SM) studies] were included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference in bracket failure at 6 months [risk ratio (RR) = 1.50, P = 0.26, 12 SM] and (RR = 0.68, P = 0.34, 2 PG), 12 months (RR = 1.6, 8 SM) and (RR = 1.17, P = 0.54, 2 PG), and ≥18 months (RR = 0.84, P = 0.31, 3 SM) and (RR = 1.20, P = 0.3, 3 PG) between SEP and AE groups could be found. Also, ARI score was similar between different bonding systems [mean difference (MD) = -0.44, P = 0.06, 4 SM]. The bonding time per tooth was faster in the SEP group (MD = -26.55, P < 0.001, 2 SM) and (MD = -24.00, P < 0.001, 2 PG).


LIMITATIONS
inclusion of three studies with a high risk of bias and high amount of inconsistency between the results of individual studies were the biggest limitations of our review.


CONCLUSIONS
The bracket bonding failure and ARI score were not significantly different between self-etch and conventional AE bonding systems. The bonding time was lower for the SEP, but some other requirements for SEPs like pumice prophylaxis could diminish this advantage.


REGISTRATION
The protocol for this systematic review was registered at PROSPERO with the ID CRD42021248540.