human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Glass ionomer orthodontic adhesives cause less enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment than do traditional resin-based products . An in vivo r and omized clinical trial was performed comparing the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) adhesive with a no-mix , resin-based ( the control ) adhesive over a 12-month period . The split-mouth technique was used to analyze bracket retention , bracket failure causes , and mode of failure for both adhesives in 61 patients .  Bracket-failure rates were 10 % for the RMGI and 4 % for the resin-based adhesive . Both adhesives had 4 times more bracket failures when opposing occlusion was present . The resin-based product demonstrated a higher proportion of resin-to-enamel adhesive failures than did the RMGI . Compared with the resin-based adhesive , the RMGI-bracketed teeth showed improved clinical performance , no enamel surface loss , less enamel demineralization , and faster adhesive removal . However , the RMGI had a 2.6 times greater bracket-failure rate than did the resin-based product OBJECTIVE Pumicing of the enamel prior to direct bonding with conventional diacrylate bonding agents has been shown to be unnecessary . It is not known whether this is also the case with resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cements . The aims of this study were two-fold : ( a ) . to determine whether pumicing prior to bonding has an effect on the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC ; ( b ) . to determine whether there is a difference in the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC . Design A cross-mouth controlled clinical trial was performed on a total of 60 patients in which the variables under test were pumicing or not pumicing of the enamel prior to bonding using two different bonding agents  . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The measurement variable was bond failure over an 18-month period . RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Prior pumicing of the enamel has no effect on in vivo failure when using either a conventional diacrylate or a resin modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cement . A greater number of bonds failed with the resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cement The objectives of this study were ( 1 ) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive ( Fuji Ortho LC ; GC America , Alsip , Ill ) after conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive ( Light Bond ; Reliance Orthodontic Products , Itasca , Ill ) bonded with 37 % phosphoric acid , ( 2 ) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives , ( 3 ) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index ( ARI ) , and ( 4 ) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid , with scanning electron microscopy . In the in vitro study , 50 extracted premolars were r and omly divided into 4 groups : brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours . Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min . Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test . The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were r and omly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique . Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years . Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function . The in vitro study results showed significant differences ( P < .05 ) among the adhesives and the debond times . Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours ( 18.46 + /- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 + /- 1.85 MPa ) and 30 minutes ( 16.19 + /- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 + /- 1.93 MPa ) . Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive ( 4.9 vs 4.1 ) . For the in vivo study , no significant differences in failure rate , sex , or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives . These results suggest that , compared with conventional resin , brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro . However , similar survival rates of the 2 material s studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinical ly . The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) with a composite resin when used for direct bonding of st and ard edgewise orthodontic brackets . Fourteen patients ( 10 females , four males ) , in whom 242 teeth were bonded with brackets , were divided into two groups : GIC ( 121 teeth ) and composite ( 121 teeth ) . The brackets were allocated to alternate quadrants and first-time failures were recorded over a period of 24 months . Data were analysed statistically ( non-parametric chi-squared test ) . The results demonstrated a significantly lower unp review ed debonding index ( UDI ) ( 15.7 per cent ) for the composite than for the GIC ( 28.1 per cent ) ( P = 0.042 ) . The use of heavy archwires was largely responsible for this difference . No difference was observed when light and medium archwires were used . GIC may be a viable alternative to composite for use with light archwires and with limited treatment objectives Decalcification during orthodontic treatment is a serious problem . A glass ionomer agent is now available to bond orthodontic brackets as an alternative to composite resins . This prospect i ve study was a clinical trial to determine if a glass ionomer bonding system ( Fuji Ortho LC ) decreases the incidence of decalcification without increasing the amount of bonding failures . A prospect i ve clinical trial with 16 patients encompassing a total of 298 teeth was conducted . The 149 control teeth were bonded with a light-cured composite resin ( Reliance Light Bond ) whereas the 149 experimental teeth were bonded with the light-cured glass ionomer agent .  Patients were followed for a period of 12 to 14 months . All teeth were evaluated for breakage ( bonding failure rate ) , and all maxillary anterior teeth ( 96 ) were evaluated for decalcification on a grade d scale . The glass ionomer failure rate was 24.8 % , and was higher than the composite resin failure rate of 7.4 % ( P < .001 ) . There were more glass ionomer bond failures in 12 of 16 patients ( P < .001 ) . Enamel decalcification was similar in the 2 bonding systems The purpose s of this investigation were to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets when bonded onto : a ) dry teeth and b ) teeth soaked with saliva . The two bonding agents were compared using a split-mouth design . In that , both systems were used for direct bonding of stainless steel brackets in every patient . Thirty-eight consecutive patients with fixed appliances were followed for a period of 12 months . The patients were r and omly divided into two groups : group A ( 11 patients ) and group B ( 27 patients ) . In group A , the performance of 220 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 110 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial Co. , Tokyo , Japan ) onto dry teeth , and 110 bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco Corp. , Glendora , CA ) . In group B , the performance of 540 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 270 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho onto teeth soaked with saliva , and 270 bonded with System 1 + . In group A , GC Fuji Ortho recorded an overall failure rate ( 34.5 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than System 1 + ( 9 % ) when applied onto completely dry teeth . Conversely , in group B , no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates of the two bonding agents were found when GC Fuji Ortho was used on teeth soaked with saliva . It was concluded , therefore , that GC Fuji Ortho shows clinical ly acceptable bond strengths when bonded onto moist teeth , but not when used on dry enamel . Both bonding agents failed mostly at the enamel/adhesive interface , without causing any enamel damage The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in a split mouth design , by using both systems for direct bonding of orthodontic stainless steel brackets in every patient . Forty eight patients ( 34 females and 14 males , of which 29 were adults > 18 years of age ) with fixed appliances were followed for a mean period of 10 months ( range 4 - 16 months ) . The performance of 864 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 404 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial , Tokyo , Japan ) onto teeth soaked with water , and 460 were bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco , Glendora , CA ) . System 1 + recorded an overall failure rate ( 18.2 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho ( 7.9 % ) . There were no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates in the upper and lower arches with either material . Both in the upper and lower arches , System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho . When the bonding performance of the six anterior teeth was compared with first and second premolars , no statistically significant differences were found ( p > 0.05 ) between bonding agents in either arch . System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho , both in the anterior and posterior segments . Both bonding agents failed mainly at the enamel-adhesive interface , without causing any damage to the enamel A new self-curing ( chemically cured ) resin-modified glass-ionomer cement , Fuji Ortho ( GC International ) , is based on the technology of hybrid glass-ionomer restorative material s and features chemical adhesion to tooth structure and long-term fluoride release . This article describes a 12-month clinical evaluation of  Fuji Ortho for the direct bonding of orthodontic ( metal ) brackets with System 1 + ( Ormco Corp. ) as a control . Three failures of Fuji Ortho occurred from a sample of 60 ( 5 % ) , with five failures of the composite resin from a sample of 60 ( 8.3 % ) . No statistical significance was seen between these results . Fuji Ortho is a satisfactory adhesive for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets where there are no occlusal interferences The clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets was compared with a composite resin routinely used in this procedure . Brackets were bonded , using both material s , in alternate quadrants of 16 patients of the Orthodontic Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro . A total of 225 teeth , 112 in the glass ionomer cement group and 113 in the composite group , were tested .  Bond failure frequencies were recorded for 12 months , and chi-square statistical test was carried out comparing the failure rates of the material s. The composite showed a statistically significant lower failure rate ( 7.96 % ) than the glass ionomer cement ( 50.89 % ) , regardless of the dental arch tested . Although the glass ionomer cement presents important properties not observed in the composite , it is necessary to increase its cohesive strength to permit its clinical use for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets Since the last comprehensive review of anticoagulation in acute myocardial infa rct ion four additional r and omized control trials have been reported . The overwhelming majority of all trials favored anticoagulation .  Rates of thromboembolism were higher in the control , and hemorrhagic complications in the anticoagulated group . Pooling of all r and omized control trials gives mean case fatality rates of 19.6 % for the control and 15.4 % for the anticoagulated group , a relative reduction of 21 % ( P less than 0.05 or less than 0.001 , depending on the analytic method ) . Five of six r and omized control trials reported " no effect " because the difference favoring anticoagulation was not statistically significant . However , sample sizes in these " negative " papers were too small to protect against missing a 21 % reduction in true case fatality rate due to anticoagulation ( beta greater than 0.10 ) . All patients who present no specific contraindication should receive  anticoagulants  during hospitalization for infa rct ion One hundred and twelve first molar b and s and 614 directly bonded brackets on incisor , canine , and premolar teeth were included in a clinical trail to investigate the importance of omission of pumice prophylaxis at the time of b and ing and bonding , on their possible subsequent failure . Half of the sample were selected for the 
    Output:
    
agent
The current evidence suggests no difference between the types of material s after 12 months but favours composite resin adhesives after a > 14-month period .
The clinical relevance of this study is that RM-GIC may have the same clinical debonding ( failure ) rate as composite resin adhesives after 1 year when used for bonding of orthodontic brackets
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Glass ionomer orthodontic adhesives cause less enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment than do traditional resin-based products . An in vivo r and omized clinical trial was performed comparing the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) adhesive with a no-mix , resin-based ( the control ) adhesive over a 12-month period . The split-mouth technique was used to analyze bracket retention , bracket failure causes , and mode of failure for both adhesives in 61 patients .  Bracket-failure rates were 10 % for the RMGI and 4 % for the resin-based adhesive . Both adhesives had 4 times more bracket failures when opposing occlusion was present . The resin-based product demonstrated a higher proportion of resin-to-enamel adhesive failures than did the RMGI . Compared with the resin-based adhesive , the RMGI-bracketed teeth showed improved clinical performance , no enamel surface loss , less enamel demineralization , and faster adhesive removal . However , the RMGI had a 2.6 times greater bracket-failure rate than did the resin-based product OBJECTIVE Pumicing of the enamel prior to direct bonding with conventional diacrylate bonding agents has been shown to be unnecessary . It is not known whether this is also the case with resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cements . The aims of this study were two-fold : ( a ) . to determine whether pumicing prior to bonding has an effect on the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC ; ( b ) . to determine whether there is a difference in the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC . Design A cross-mouth controlled clinical trial was performed on a total of 60 patients in which the variables under test were pumicing or not pumicing of the enamel prior to bonding using two different bonding agents  . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The measurement variable was bond failure over an 18-month period . RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Prior pumicing of the enamel has no effect on in vivo failure when using either a conventional diacrylate or a resin modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cement . A greater number of bonds failed with the resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate ) cement The objectives of this study were ( 1 ) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive ( Fuji Ortho LC ; GC America , Alsip , Ill ) after conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive ( Light Bond ; Reliance Orthodontic Products , Itasca , Ill ) bonded with 37 % phosphoric acid , ( 2 ) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives , ( 3 ) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index ( ARI ) , and ( 4 ) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid , with scanning electron microscopy . In the in vitro study , 50 extracted premolars were r and omly divided into 4 groups : brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours . Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min . Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test . The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were r and omly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique . Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years . Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function . The in vitro study results showed significant differences ( P < .05 ) among the adhesives and the debond times . Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours ( 18.46 + /- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 + /- 1.85 MPa ) and 30 minutes ( 16.19 + /- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 + /- 1.93 MPa ) . Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive ( 4.9 vs 4.1 ) . For the in vivo study , no significant differences in failure rate , sex , or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives . These results suggest that , compared with conventional resin , brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro . However , similar survival rates of the 2 material s studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinical ly . The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) with a composite resin when used for direct bonding of st and ard edgewise orthodontic brackets . Fourteen patients ( 10 females , four males ) , in whom 242 teeth were bonded with brackets , were divided into two groups : GIC ( 121 teeth ) and composite ( 121 teeth ) . The brackets were allocated to alternate quadrants and first-time failures were recorded over a period of 24 months . Data were analysed statistically ( non-parametric chi-squared test ) . The results demonstrated a significantly lower unp review ed debonding index ( UDI ) ( 15.7 per cent ) for the composite than for the GIC ( 28.1 per cent ) ( P = 0.042 ) . The use of heavy archwires was largely responsible for this difference . No difference was observed when light and medium archwires were used . GIC may be a viable alternative to composite for use with light archwires and with limited treatment objectives Decalcification during orthodontic treatment is a serious problem . A glass ionomer agent is now available to bond orthodontic brackets as an alternative to composite resins . This prospect i ve study was a clinical trial to determine if a glass ionomer bonding system ( Fuji Ortho LC ) decreases the incidence of decalcification without increasing the amount of bonding failures . A prospect i ve clinical trial with 16 patients encompassing a total of 298 teeth was conducted . The 149 control teeth were bonded with a light-cured composite resin ( Reliance Light Bond ) whereas the 149 experimental teeth were bonded with the light-cured glass ionomer agent .  Patients were followed for a period of 12 to 14 months . All teeth were evaluated for breakage ( bonding failure rate ) , and all maxillary anterior teeth ( 96 ) were evaluated for decalcification on a grade d scale . The glass ionomer failure rate was 24.8 % , and was higher than the composite resin failure rate of 7.4 % ( P < .001 ) . There were more glass ionomer bond failures in 12 of 16 patients ( P < .001 ) . Enamel decalcification was similar in the 2 bonding systems The purpose s of this investigation were to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets when bonded onto : a ) dry teeth and b ) teeth soaked with saliva . The two bonding agents were compared using a split-mouth design . In that , both systems were used for direct bonding of stainless steel brackets in every patient . Thirty-eight consecutive patients with fixed appliances were followed for a period of 12 months . The patients were r and omly divided into two groups : group A ( 11 patients ) and group B ( 27 patients ) . In group A , the performance of 220 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 110 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial Co. , Tokyo , Japan ) onto dry teeth , and 110 bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco Corp. , Glendora , CA ) . In group B , the performance of 540 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 270 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho onto teeth soaked with saliva , and 270 bonded with System 1 + . In group A , GC Fuji Ortho recorded an overall failure rate ( 34.5 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than System 1 + ( 9 % ) when applied onto completely dry teeth . Conversely , in group B , no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates of the two bonding agents were found when GC Fuji Ortho was used on teeth soaked with saliva . It was concluded , therefore , that GC Fuji Ortho shows clinical ly acceptable bond strengths when bonded onto moist teeth , but not when used on dry enamel . Both bonding agents failed mostly at the enamel/adhesive interface , without causing any enamel damage The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in a split mouth design , by using both systems for direct bonding of orthodontic stainless steel brackets in every patient . Forty eight patients ( 34 females and 14 males , of which 29 were adults > 18 years of age ) with fixed appliances were followed for a mean period of 10 months ( range 4 - 16 months ) . The performance of 864 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 404 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial , Tokyo , Japan ) onto teeth soaked with water , and 460 were bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco , Glendora , CA ) . System 1 + recorded an overall failure rate ( 18.2 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho ( 7.9 % ) . There were no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates in the upper and lower arches with either material . Both in the upper and lower arches , System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho . When the bonding performance of the six anterior teeth was compared with first and second premolars , no statistically significant differences were found ( p > 0.05 ) between bonding agents in either arch . System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho , both in the anterior and posterior segments . Both bonding agents failed mainly at the enamel-adhesive interface , without causing any damage to the enamel A new self-curing ( chemically cured ) resin-modified glass-ionomer cement , Fuji Ortho ( GC International ) , is based on the technology of hybrid glass-ionomer restorative material s and features chemical adhesion to tooth structure and long-term fluoride release . This article describes a 12-month clinical evaluation of  Fuji Ortho for the direct bonding of orthodontic ( metal ) brackets with System 1 + ( Ormco Corp. ) as a control . Three failures of Fuji Ortho occurred from a sample of 60 ( 5 % ) , with five failures of the composite resin from a sample of 60 ( 8.3 % ) . No statistical significance was seen between these results . Fuji Ortho is a satisfactory adhesive for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets where there are no occlusal interferences The clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets was compared with a composite resin routinely used in this procedure . Brackets were bonded , using both material s , in alternate quadrants of 16 patients of the Orthodontic Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro . A total of 225 teeth , 112 in the glass ionomer cement group and 113 in the composite group , were tested .  Bond failure frequencies were recorded for 12 months , and chi-square statistical test was carried out comparing the failure rates of the material s. The composite showed a statistically significant lower failure rate ( 7.96 % ) than the glass ionomer cement ( 50.89 % ) , regardless of the dental arch tested . Although the glass ionomer cement presents important properties not observed in the composite , it is necessary to increase its cohesive strength to permit its clinical use for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets Since the last comprehensive review of anticoagulation in acute myocardial infa rct ion four additional r and omized control trials have been reported . The overwhelming majority of all trials favored anticoagulation .  Rates of thromboembolism were higher in the control , and hemorrhagic complications in the anticoagulated group . Pooling of all r and omized control trials gives mean case fatality rates of 19.6 % for the control and 15.4 % for the anticoagulated group , a relative reduction of 21 % ( P less than 0.05 or less than 0.001 , depending on the analytic method ) . Five of six r and omized control trials reported " no effect " because the difference favoring anticoagulation was not statistically significant . However , sample sizes in these " negative " papers were too small to protect against missing a 21 % reduction in true case fatality rate due to anticoagulation ( beta greater than 0.10 ) . All patients who present no specific contraindication should receive  anticoagulants  during hospitalization for infa rct ion One hundred and twelve first molar b and s and 614 directly bonded brackets on incisor , canine , and premolar teeth were included in a clinical trail to investigate the importance of omission of pumice prophylaxis at the time of b and ing and bonding , on their possible subsequent failure . Half of the sample were selected for the 
    Output:
    