Comparison of brackets bonded with bulk-fill composite and conventional composite: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial

The primary objective of this study was to compare the survival rate of orthodontic brackets bonded with bulk-fill composite and conventional light-cured composite. The secondary objective was to compare plaque accumulation and gingival health between the two bonding materials using plaque index and gingival index. Single-center, prospective, split-mouth randomized controlled trial. This single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from July 2025 to February 2026. A total of 53 participants were included, contributing 212 quadrants. Bulk-fill composite was allocated to 106 quadrants and conventional light-cured composite to 106 quadrants. Bracket bond survival was assessed over four months. Plaque accumulation and gingival health were evaluated using plaque index and gingival index at baseline and monthly follow-up visits. Fisher’s exact test, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, Cox regression, and linear mixed model analysis were applied. The study investigators, participants, and outcome assessors were not blinded because of the nature of the bonding materials and clinical procedure. In the conventional composite group, bracket bond failure occurred in 9 quadrants (8.5%), while in the bulk-fill composite group, failure occurred in 5 quadrants (4.7%). Although bulk-fill composite showed a lower percentage of bracket failure, the difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.408). Cox regression showed that material type was not a significant predictor of bracket survival. However, hard food chewing was significantly associated with bracket failure, increasing the risk by 18.54 times ( p < 0.001). Material type had no significant effect on plaque index or gingival index, although both indices changed significantly over time. Bulk-fill composite showed comparable bracket survival, plaque accumulation, and gingival health outcomes to conventional light-cured composite. Patient compliance, particularly avoidance of hard food chewing, remains essential for reducing bracket failure. Retrospectively registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT07155343 on 20 July 2025.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Oral Health
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-10182-z
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of brackets bonded with bulk-fill composite and conventional composite: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial

Muhammad Mughni, Rashna Hoshang Sukhia, Rizwan Khalil, Laiba Amin et al.
BMC Oral Health
Dental materials and restorations
article

Comparison of brackets bonded with bulk-fill composite and conventional composite: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial

Muhammad Mughni, Rashna Hoshang Sukhia, Rizwan Khalil, Laiba Amin, Syed Muhammad Ali Gilani, Mubassar Fida
article en

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to compare the survival rate of orthodontic brackets bonded with bulk-fill composite and conventional light-cured composite. The secondary objective was to compare plaque accumulation and gingival health between the two bonding materials using plaque index and gingival index. Single-center, prospective, split-mouth randomized controlled trial. This single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, from July 2025 to February 2026. A total of 53 participants were included, contributing 212 quadrants. Bulk-fill composite was allocated to 106 quadrants and conventional light-cured composite to 106 quadrants. Bracket bond survival was assessed over four months. Plaque accumulation and gingival health were evaluated using plaque index and gingival index at baseline and monthly follow-up visits. Fisher’s exact test, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, Cox regression, and linear mixed model analysis were applied. The study investigators, participants, and outcome assessors were not blinded because of the nature of the bonding materials and clinical procedure. In the conventional composite group, bracket bond failure occurred in 9 quadrants (8.5%), while in the bulk-fill composite group, failure occurred in 5 quadrants (4.7%). Although bulk-fill composite showed a lower percentage of bracket failure, the difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.408). Cox regression showed that material type was not a significant predictor of bracket survival. However, hard food chewing was significantly associated with bracket failure, increasing the risk by 18.54 times ( p < 0.001). Material type had no significant effect on plaque index or gingival index, although both indices changed significantly over time. Bulk-fill composite showed comparable bracket survival, plaque accumulation, and gingival health outcomes to conventional light-cured composite. Patient compliance, particularly avoidance of hard food chewing, remains essential for reducing bracket failure. Retrospectively registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT07155343 on 20 July 2025.

BMC Oral Health
Aga Khan University Hospital (PK)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.