Type of the Paper (Article Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2023), ISSN (P): 1817-1869, ISSN (E): 2311-5270 76 Review Article Molar tubes and failure rates – A review Nawar M. Hasan 1*, Yassir A. Yassir 2, Grant T. McIntyre 3 1. Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq. 3. Honorary professor of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, UK. * Correspondence email; nawwar.mohammed1203a@codental.uobaghdad.edu.iq Abstract: Objectives: To review the failure rates of molar tubes and the effect of molar tube base design, adhesive type, and bonding technique on the failure rates of molar tubes. Data: The revolution of molar bonding greatly impacted fixed orthodontic appliance treat- ment by reducing chair-side time and improving patient comfort. Even with the many ad- vantages of molar bonding, clinicians sometimes hesitate to use molar tubes due to their failure rates. Sources: Internet sources, such as Pubmed and Google Scholar. Study selection: studies testing the bond failure rate of molar tubes. Conclusions: The failure rate of the mo- lar tubes can be reduced and the bond strength of the molar tubes can be improved by changing the design of the molar tube base, the adhesive type, and the bonding technique. Keywords: molar tubes, bond failure, bonding technique, bonding adhesive, base design. Introduction A molar tube is a terminal attachment in the shape of a metal tube bonded on the buccal surface of molars through which the archwire slides as the teeth move (1). They can be categorized based on the mode of attachment as weldable (welded onto bands) and bondable (bonded to the tooth surface) (Fig- ure 1), based on the lumen shape as round, oval, and rectangular (Figure 2), based on the number of tubes as single, double, and triple (Figure 3), and based on the technique/prescription as Begg tube, Edgewise tube (0° tip and torque values), and pre-adjusted edgewise (with prescribed in-out, tip, and torque values) (2): Figure 1: Types of molar tubes based on the mode of attachment. (A) weldable molar tubes (B) bondable molar tubes (3). Received date: 01-03-2023 Accepted date: 06-04-2023 Published date: 15-06-2023 Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Submitted for possible open ac- cess publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/lice nses/by/4.0/). https://doi.org/10.26477/jb cd.v35i2.3407 mailto:nawwar.mohammed1203a@codental.uobaghdad.edu.iq https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1945-6078 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9577-8947 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7224-4739 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.26477/jbcd.v35i2.3407 https://doi.org/10.26477/jbcd.v35i2.3407 J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 77 Figure 2: Types of molar tubes based on lumen shape. (A) round (B) oval (C) rectangular (2). Figure 3: Types of molar tubes based on the number of tubes. (A) Single (B) Double (C) Triple (4). Bonding of Molars In the past, orthodontists preferred to band molar teeth during fixed appliance therapy. But more recently, the popularity of molar tubes has increased and become a routine procedure, especially with the evolution of adhesive systems (5-8). Molar bonding has multiple advantages over banding. These advantages include; better oral hygiene can be maintained (8), therefore, less plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, and periodontal problems (9,10), no need for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients at risk from bacteremia (6), more patient comfort by eliminating painful banding experiences (11,12), eliminating the need for separators and the spaces caused by the bands (6), better esthetic (13-15), reducing the chairside time and allowing completion of the bonding procedure in a single visit (16,17), and allowing easier detection of caries (14,15). The most important disadvantage of molar bonding is the failure of bonding which tends to delay treatment time, which is considered a primary concern for most orthodontists and patients looking for orthodontic treatment. Another disadvantage of molar bonding is the higher rate of enamel decalcifica- tion and white spot lesion formation with bonding molars than with banding (7,8,12,18-21). The molar tubes and the bonding adhesives provide a retentive site for plaque accumulation and this new site is susceptible to caries (22-24). J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 78 Bond Failure Despite the advantages of direct bonding of molars in terms of comfort, shorter chair time, and mi- nor periodontal damage, a lot of orthodontists still prefer to band molars in orthodontic treatment due to the better reliability of molar bands and higher bond failure of molar tubes (8,19,25,26). Attachments bonded to molars showed a lower bond strength and a higher clinical failure rate than those bonded to teeth more anteriorly in the arch (5,28-30). The difficulty in achieving adequate moisture control during bonding, the high masticatory forces on molars, the different etching patterns, the inadequate adaptation of the molar tube base causing an uneven adhesive layer, the differences in acid-etching times, and individual variations in enamel composition are potential factors of bond failure (12,14,18,28-32). Failure Rates In the early years of bonding molars, bonded molar tubes were found to have a high failure rate (up to 30%) when compared with bonded brackets on other teeth (5,6). In 1999, Millett et al. did a retrospec- tive study and analyzed patients ’ records. They found the overall failure rate was 21%, with 22% in the maxillary molars and 20% in the mandibular molars (33). In 2001, Millett et al. reported that molar tubes bonded with either a light-cured or a chemically-cured resin adhesive had shown failure rates greater than 21% (29). In 2005, Pandis et al. recorded a total failure rate of 14.80% with the greatest failure rates in the second molars on all quadrants (34). In 2007, Banks and Macfarlane compared the failure rates of molar tubes and molar bands and found that the molar tubes had twice the failure rates of the bands. The failure rates of molar tubes varied from 14.8% to 29.5% (6). In 2011, Nazir et al. found that molar tubes placed on the first permanent molars during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment have higher failure rates than bands (19). In 2014, Jung tested failure rates of brackets and molar tubes in young (under 18 years) and older patients (over 18 years). He found no significant difference in the failure rates of mo- lar tubes when the first molars are compared to the second molars. He also found that failure rates of molar tubes were higher in younger patients (15.3%) than in older ones (5.2%) (35). In 2016, Oeiras et al. compared the failure rates of molar tubes and molar bands. After 12 months of follow-up, they found that banded molars had a failure rate of 30.5% and bonded molars had a failure rate of 28.8%. The bonded molar tubes showed the first bond failure in the first two months, whereas the bands showed the first failure within three months (8). In 2018, Gupta and Mahanta reported that the failure rates of molar tubes were more than the failure rates of brackets on premolars, canines, and incisors. They also found that the failure rates were greater in the upper right second molars and upper left first molars (10). Discussion The Effect of Base Design on Failure Rates Manufacturers have improved the mechanical retention of molar tubes by introducing undercuts in cast molar tube bases or by welding mesh wires of varying diameters to the base and incorporating different designs in the mesh itself. Other techniques to enhance retention include; structuring bases using laser, sandblasting, plasma-coated metal bases, and fusing the bases with metal or ceramic particles (6,36-39) (Figure 4). J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 79 In 2013, Matasa found that the most significant influencing factors concerning the mesh design are the wire diameter of the mesh and the mesh number (the number of openings per unit of area of the mesh). Mesh bases provided greater shear bond strength with larger mesh spaces (apertures) than bases with smaller mesh apertures. Air needs to have the ability to escape the base for the resin to penetrate effec- tively and this is influenced by the free volume between the attachment base and the mesh (36,39,41). Figure 4: Bracket bases under an electron microscope with X25 magnification in (A) and (C) and X200 magnification in (B) and (D). (A) and (B) laser-structured bracket base. (C) and (D) a simple foil mesh bracket base (40). Base design refinement and improved adhesive systems allowed the manufacturers to decrease the size of the molar tube without affecting bond strength (6,36,38,39,41). In 2012, Talpur et al. conducted a study to test the relationship between bond strength and molar tube base surface area. The molar tubes tested had different base surface areas and different profiles. No statistically significant relationship was found between bond strength and molar tube base surface area (42). The Effect of Adhesive Type on Failure Rates The adhesive should be strong enough to keep the molar tube attached to the tooth surface and resist tensile, shear, torque, and functional stresses during the orthodontic treatment. Still, it should not be too strong that causes damage to the enamel when the tube is removed. The enamel fracture causes staining and plaque accumulation on the rough surface (40,43-45). There are different types of orthodontic adhesives with different values of bond strength depending on the properties of the material (33,46). When comparing chemically-cured and light-cured composites, no statistically significant differences in bracket failure rates were reported. But when comparing chemically-cured composite and chemical- ly-cured conventional glass ionomer cement, the latter showed statistically significantly higher failure rates than the chemically-cured composite (47-49). In 2000, Millett et al. reported no statistically significant differences between compomer and composite failure rates (50). In 2004, Aljubouri et al. found no significant difference, clinically and statistically, be- tween the bond failure rate of the self-etching primer and the two-stage (etch and primer) bonding sys- tem. This was supported by similar results by Banks and Thiruvenkatachari (51,52). In 2005, Pandis et al. conducted an in-vivo study to assess the failure rates on molar tubes bonded with 3M Transbond Plus self-etching primer on the first and second molars. Molar tubes bonded on first molars with self-etching primer showed failure rates comparable with those for tubes bonded with conventional acid etching (34). In 2019, a study by Tanbakuchi et al. revealed that the addition of amorphous calcium phosphate to resin-modified glass ionomer cement significantly decreases the shear bond strength of molar tubes J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 80 compared to the conventional resin bonding system (53). In 2021, Griffin et al. conducted an in-vitro study comparing the shear bond strength of four adhesive systems. The adhesive systems included one etch-and-rinse adhesive system and two all-in-one adhesives. Still, enamel was acid etched before ap- plying adhesives, and one new all-in-one bonding agent (8th generation) together with a traditional ad- hesive used to bond molar tubes. All adhesives showed acceptable shear bond strengths for clinical use, without any significant differences in shear bond strengths when used to bond molar tubes (54). The Effect of Bonding Technique on Failure Rates Despite the recent advancements in increasing the retentive strength of orthodontic adhesive systems and reducing the failure rate of orthodontic attachments, it may be more important to improve the pro- cedure of bonding, especially for molars that are subjected to high occlusal forces (5,15). Many in-vitro studies have tested different bonding techniques that might reduce the frequency of molar bond failures. Johnston and McSherry (1999) reported that sandblasting the foil mesh base of the molar tube provided only a minimal improvement in clinical performance (55). Pinzan-Vercelino et al. (2011) conducted an in-vitro study. They observed that applying an additional layer of adhesive at the occlusal molar/tube interface increased the shear bond strength of the molar tube (15) (Figure 5). Nascimento et al. (2014) did an in-vivo study. They reported that adding an adhesive layer at the molar/tube interface provides high- er bond strength than can be achieved with conventional direct bonding (12). Figure 5: A molar tube bonded with an additional layer of resin (red arrow) in the buccal (A) and occlu- sal (B) view (17). In 2017, Abu Alhaija et al. studied the effect of silane-coating of molar tube bases and enamel mi- cro-abrasion (18% hydrochloric acid and pumice) on the shear and tensile bond strengths of molar tubes. The greatest shear and tensile bond strengths were reported in molar tubes bonded to molars pre-treated with micro-abrasion before the conventional acid etching with the addition of silane to the molar tube bases. While molar tubes bonded to molars pre-treated with micro-abrasion only and molar tubes bonded to molars pre-treated with micro-abrasion with the addition of silane to the molar tube bases without the conventional acid etching; recorded bond strength values similar to that of the molar tubes bonded to molars etched with 37% phosphoric acid gel (56). In 2020, Ganiger et al. investigated the effect of sandblasting enamel surface instead of acid etching on the bond strength. They found that sandblast- ing using 50μ aluminum oxide particles instead of the acid etching technique improved the bond strength. Moreover, sandblasting using 100μ aluminum oxide particles recorded higher bond strength J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 81 than 50μ particles (57). In 2020, Jardim et al. conducted an in-vitro study and found that using flowable resin adhesives as a bonding reinforcement (the additional adhesive layer at the molar/tube interface) does not provide a significant increase in the bond strength of the molar tubes (17). Conclusion With the advancement of enamel bonding techniques, molar tubes have become more popular among orthodontists. The main setback of molar bonding was the high failure rates of molar tubes which lengthened the treatment time and increased the number of emergency visits. Changes in the molar tube base design, adhesive type, and bonding technique have improved the bond strength of mo- lar tubes and reduced failure rates. The base design of molar tubes was improved by incorporating un- dercuts in the base design and welding mesh wires of different sizes in the molar tube base. Composite resins are still superior to other types of adhesives. The bonding technique was improved by sandblast- ing, enamel micro-abrasion, and adding an adhesive layer at the occlusal molar/tube interface. Conflict of interest: None References 1. Al-Zubaidi, HJ., Alhuwaizi, AF. Molar buccal tubes front and back openings dimensions and torsional play. J Bagh Coll Dent. 2018; 30(3): 32-39. )Crossref) 2. Singh, G. Textbook of Orthodontics. Second ed., Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, 2007. (Crossref) 3. GH Orthodontics Product Catalog (2020). Printed in USA. (Crossref) 4. Ortho Technology Product Catalog (2021). Printed in USA. (Crossref) 5. Zachrisson, BJ. A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod. 1977; 71(2): 173-189. (Crossref) 6. Banks, P., Macfarlane, TV. Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod. 2007; 34(2): 128-136; discussion 111-2. (Crossref) 7. Flores-Mir, C. Bonded molar tubes associated with higher failure rate than molar bands. Evid Based Dent. 2011; 12(3): 84. (Crossref) 8. Oeiras, VJ., Silva, VA., Azevedo, LA., Lobato, VS., Normando, D. Survival analysis of banding and bonding molar tubes in adult patients over a 12-month period: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res. 2016; 30(1): e136. (Crossref) 9. Beemer, RL., Ferracane, JL., Howard, HE. Orthodontic band retention on primary molar stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 1993; 15(6): 408-413. (Crossref) 10. Gupta, R., Mahanta, S. Assessment of failure rates between cemented molar bands and bondable molar tubes during the com- plete orthodontic treatment. J Nepal Dent. Assoc. 2018; 18(1): 13-16. (Crossref) 11. Paschos, E., Kurochkina, N., Huth, KC., Hansson, CS., Rudzki-Janson, I. Failure rate of brackets bonded with antimicrobial and fluoride-releasing, self-etching primer and the effect on prevention of enamel demineralization. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or- thop. 2009; 135(5): 613-620. (Crossref) 12. Nascimento, AÉVE., Bramante, FS., Pinzan-Vercelino, CR., Pinzan, A., Gurgel, JA. Resin reinforcement: an alternative approach for direct bonding of molar tubes. J Clin Orthod. 2014; 48(7): 436-440. (Crossref) 13. Zachrisson, BU. Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and supporting structures during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1976; 69(3): 285-300. (Crossref) 14. Boyd, RL., Baumrind, S. Periodontal considerations in the use of bonds or bands on molars in adolescents and adults. Angle Orthod. 1992; 62(2): 117-126. (Crossref) https://doi.org/10.26477/jbcd.v30i3.2529 https://doi.org/10.26477/jbcd.v30i3.2529 https://www.jaypeedigital.com/book/9788184480801 https://shop.ghorthodontics.com/catalog/ https://www.orthotechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Ortho_Technology_Catalog_Product_Catalog_Vol_21_Web.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002941677903943 https://doi.org/10.1179/146531207225022032 https://www.nature.com/articles/6400813 https://www.scielo.br/j/bor/a/QFYKK7w9ktTkQxNcBThTfNM/?lang=en https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/publications/archives/beemer-15-06.pdf http://www.jnda.com.np/main/?p=24&articleId=439 https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(09)00136-X/fulltext https://www.jco-online.com/archive/2014/07/436/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002941676900774?via%3Dihub https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/62/2/117/55686/Periodontal-considerations-in-the-use-of-bonds-or J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 82 15. Pinzan-Vercelino, CR., Pinzan, A., Gurgel, JA., Bramante, FS., Pinzan, LM. In-vitro evaluation of an alternative method to bond molar tubes. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011; 19(1): 41-46. (Crossref) 16. Corbacho de Melo, MM., Cardoso, MG., Faber, J., Sobral, A. Risk factors for periodontal changes in adult patients with banded second molars during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(2): 224-228. (Crossref) 17. Jardim, AFV., Azevedo, MN., Souza, JB., Freitas, JC, Estrela, C. Evaluation of bond strength of molar orthodontic tubes subjected to reinforcement with flowable and bonding resins. J Orofac Orthop. 2020; 81(5): 350-359. (Crossref) 18. Millett, DT., Hallgren, A., Cattanach, D., McFadzean, R., Pattison, J., Robertson, M., et al. A 5-year clinical review of bond failure with a light-cured resin adhesive. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68(4): 351-356. (Crossref) 19. Nazir, M., Walsh, T., Mandall, NA., Matthew, S., Fox, D. Banding versus bonding of first permanent molars: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. J Orthod. 2011; 38(2): 81-89. (Crossref) 20. Abbing, A., Koretsi, V., Eliades, T., Papageorgiou, SN. Duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescents and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Prog Orthod. 2020; 21(1): 37. (Crossref) 21. Al-Attar, AM., Al-Shaham, S., Abid, M. Perception of Iraqi Orthodontists and Patients toward Accelerated Orthodontics. Int J Dent. 2021; 2021:5512455. (Crossref) 22. Artun, J., Brobakken, BO. Prevalence of carious white spots after orthodontic treatment with multi-bonded appliances. Eur J Orthod. 1986; 8(4): 229-234. (Crossref) 23. Al-Musallam, TA., Evans, CA., Drummond, JL., Matasa, C., Wu, CD. Anti-microbial properties of an orthodontic adhesive combined with cetylpyridinium chloride. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129(2): 245-251. (Crossref) 24. Hailan, SY., Al-Khatieeb, MM. The effects of incorporating some additives on shear bond strength of orthodontic adhesive (an in-vitro study). Int J Med Res Health Sci. 2018; 7(11): 11-18. (Crossref) 25. Gillgrass, TJ., Benington, PC., Millett, DT., Newell, J., Gilmour, WH. Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 120(1): 49-53. (Crossref) 26. Clark, JR., Ireland, AJ., Sherriff, M. An in-vivo and ex-vivo study to evaluate the use of a glass polyphosphonate cement in or- thodontic banding. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25(3): 319-323. (Crossref) 27. Geiger, AM., Gorelick, J., Gwinnett, AJ. Bond failure rates of facial and lingual attachments. J Clin Orthod. 1983; 17(3): 165-169. (Crossref) 28. Knoll, M., Gwinnett, AJ., Wolff, MS. Shear strength of brackets bonded to anterior and posterior teeth. Am J Orthod. 1986; 89(6): 476-479. (Crossref) 29. Millett, DT., Letters, S., Roger, E., Cummings, A., Love, J. Bonded molar tubes - an in-vitro evaluation. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71(5): 380-385. (Crossref) 30. Evans, LB., Powers, JM. Factors affecting in-vitro bond strength of no-mix orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod. 1985; 87(6): 508-512. (Crossref) 31. Johnston, CD., Hussey, DL., Burden, DJ. The effect of etch duration on the microstructure of molar enamel: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109(5): 531-534. (Crossref) 32. Mattick, CR., Hobson, RS. A comparative micro-topographic study of the buccal enamel of different tooth types. J Orthod. 2000; 27(2): 143-148. (Crossref) 33. Millett, DT., Cattanach, D., McFadzean, R., Pattison, J., McColl, J. Laboratory evaluation of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. Angle Orthod. 1999; 69(1): 58-63. (Crossref) 34. Pandis, N., Christensen, L., Eliades, T. Long-term clinical failure rate of molar tubes bonded with a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(6): 1000-1002. (Crossref) 35. Jung, MH. Survival analysis of brackets and tubes: A twelve-month assessment. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84(6): 1034-1040. (Crossref) 36. Cucu, M., Driessen, CH., Ferreira, PD. The influence of orthodontic bracket base diameter and mesh size on bond strength. S Afr Dent J. 2002; 57(1): 16-20. (Crossref) https://www.scielo.br/j/jaos/a/mDcyPSYVxQygvSqYjx3y3Mw/?lang=en https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/82/2/224/57457/Risk-factors-for-periodontal-changes-in-adult https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00056-020-00235-5 https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/68/4/351/57199/A-5-year-clinical-review-of-bond-failure-with-a https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1179/14653121141308?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed https://progressinorthodontics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40510-020-00334-4 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijd/2021/5512455/ https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article-abstract/8/4/229/416431?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(05)01149-2/fulltext https://www.ijmrhs.com/abstract/the-effects-of-incorporating-some-additives-on-shear-bond-strength-of-orthodontic-adhesive-an-invitro-study-15408.html https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(01)67715-1/fulltext https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/25/3/319/403575?login=false https://www.jco-online.com/archive/1983/03/165/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002941686900035?via%3Dihub https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/71/5/380/57441/Bonded-Molar-Tubes-An-In-Vitro-Evaluation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002941685900879?via%3Dihub https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(96)70138-5/fulltext https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/ortho/27.2.143?journalCode=yjor20 https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/69/1/58/57324/Laboratory-evaluation-of-a-compomer-and-a-resin https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/75/6/1000/58212/Long-term-Clinical-Failure-Rate-of-Molar-Tubes https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/84/6/1034/59071/Survival-analysis-of-brackets-and-tubes-A-twelve https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11901581/ J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 83 37. Wang, WN., Li, CH., Chou, TH., Wang, DD., Lin, LH., Lin, CT. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125(1): 65-70. (Crossref) 38. Cozza, P., Martucci, L., De Toffol, L., Penco, SI. Shear bond strength of metal brackets on enamel. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(5): 851-856. (Crossref) 39. Thapa, VB., Shrestha, A., Sherchan, P., Poudel, P., Joshi, L. Comparison of shear bond strength of two commercially available bondable molar tubes. Orthod J Nepal. 2019; 9(1): 11-14. (Crossref) 40. Sorel, O., El-Alam, R., Chagneau, F., Cathelineau, G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and la- ser-structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(3): 260-266. (Crossref) 41. MacColl, GA., Rossouw, PE., Titley, KC., Yamin, C. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113(3): 276-281. (Crossref) 42. Talpur, M., Cunningham, SJ., Moles, DR., Jones, SP. The relationship between base dimensions, force to failure, and shear bond strengths of bondable molar tubes. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(3): 536-540. (Crossref) 43. Meng, CL., Li, CH., Wang, WN. Bond strength with APF applied after acid etching. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 510-513. (Crossref) 44. Sorel, O., El-Alam, R., Chagneau, F., Cathelineau, G. Changes in the enamel after in-vitro debonding of brackets bonded with a modified glass ionomer cement. Orthod Fr. 2000; 71: 155-163. (Crossref) 45. Hasan, GM., Al-Dabagh, DJN. Assessment of enamel surface after debonding of different types of esthetic brackets (an in-vitro study). J Bagh Coll Dent. 2016; 28(4): 162-167. (Crossref) 46. Millett, DT., Mandall, NA., Mattick, RC., Hickman, J., Glenny, AM. Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 2(2): CD008236. (Crossref) 47. Norevall, LI., Marcusson, A., Persson, M. A clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as an orthodontic bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin. Eur J Orthod. 1996; 18(4): 373-384. (Crossref) 48. Mandall, N.A., Millett, D.T., Mattick, C.R., Hickman, J., Worthington, H.V., Macfarlane, T.V. Orthodontic adhesives: a systematic review. J Orthod. 2002; 29(3): 205-210. (Crossref) 49. Mandall, NA., Millett, DT., Mattick, CR., Hickman, J., Macfarlane, T.V., Worthington, H.V. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 4(4): CD002282. (Crossref) 50. Millett, DT., McCluskey, LA., McAuley, F., Creanor, SL., Newell, J., Love, J. A comparative clinical trial of a compomer and a resin adhesive for orthodontic bonding. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70(3): 233-240. (Crossref) 51. Aljubouri, YD., Millett, DT., Gilmour, WH. Six and 12 months' evaluation of a self-etching primer versus two-stage etch and prime for orthodontic bonding: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2004; 26(6): 565-571. (Crossref) 52. Banks, P., Thiruvenkatachari, B. Long-term clinical evaluation of bracket failure with a self-etching primer: a randomized con- trolled trial. J Orthod. 2007; 34(4): 243-251. (Crossref) 53. Tanbakuchi, B., Hooshmand, T., Javad Kharazifard, M., Shekofteh, K., Hesam Arefi, A. Shear bond strength of molar tubes to enamel using an orthodontic resin-modified glass ionomer cement modified with amorphous calcium phosphate. Front Dent. 2019; 16(5): 369-378. (Crossref) 54. Griffin, J., Ruddy, M., Mavreas, D., Nace, S., Vande Vannet, B., Stanton, K.T. Comparison of shear bond strength and ARI of four different adhesive systems used to bond molar tubes: An in-vitro study. Int Orthod. 2021; 19(1): 117-122. (Crossref) 55. Johnston, CD., McSherry, PF. The effects of sandblasting on the bond strength of molar attachments - an in-vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 1999; 21(3): 311-317. (Crossref) 56. Abu-Alhaija, E., Jaradat, M., Alwahadni, A. An Ex-vivo Shear and tensile bond strengths of orthodontic molar tubes bonded using different techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9(3): e448-e453. (Crossref) 57. Ganiger, C., Agarwal, N., Pawar, R., Phaphe, S., Ahammed, Y., Mane, P., et al. To evaluate the shear bond strength of bondable molar tubes by two enamel conditioning techniques. J Evolution Med Dent Sci. 2020; 9(35), 2507-2510. (Crossref) https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(03)00736-4/fulltext https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/76/5/851/184487/Shear-Bond-Strength-of-Metal-Brackets-on-Enamel https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/OJN/article/view/25683 https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(02)00066-5/fulltext https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(98)70297-5/fulltext https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/82/3/536/58891/The-relationship-between-base-dimensions-force-to https://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(98)70170-2/fulltext https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10916640/ https://jbcd.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/jbcd/article/view/1518 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub3/full https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/18/4/373/380016?login=true https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1093/ortho/29.3.205?journalCode=yjor20 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002282/full https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/70/3/233/131851/A-Comparative-Clinical-Trial-of-a-Compomer-and-a https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/26/6/565/392303?login=true https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/146531207225022293?journalCode=yjor20 https://fid.tums.ac.ir/index.php/fid/article/view/3159 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1761722720301236?via%3Dihub https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/21/3/311/480758?login=true https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5347297/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2020/545 J. Bagh. Coll. Dent. Vol. 35, No. 2. 2023 Hasan et al 84 مراجعة -ومعدالت الفشل االنابيب الضرسيةالعنوان: نوار محمد حسن، ياسر عبد الكاظم ياسر، كرانت مكنتاير :الباحثون المستخلص: : البيانات. ضرسيةال نابيبأل ا فشل معدالت على لصق ال وتقنية الالصقة المادة ونوع ضرسية ال نبوب أل ا قاعدة تصميم وتأثير ضرسيةال نابيبأل ا فشل معدالت مراجعة: األهداف العديدة المزايا مع حتى . المريض راحة وتحسين الكرسي بجانب الجلوس وقت تقليل حيث من الثابتة األسنان تقويم بأجهزة العالج على كبير تأثير ضرسي ال لصقال لثورة كان : الدراسة اختيار .Google Scholarو Pubmed مثل اإلنترنت، مصادر: المصادر. فشلهم معدالت بسبب ضرسيةال األنابيب استخدام في أحيانًا األطباء يتردد ،ضرسيال للصق تصميم تغيير طريق عن ةضرسيال لألنابيب لصقال قوة تحسين ويمكن ةضرسيال األنابيب فشل معدل تقليل يمكن: الخالصة. ةضرسيال لألنابيب لصقال فشل معدل رتختب دراسات . لصقال وتقنية الالصقة المادة ونوع ي ضرس ال األنبوب قاعدة