» Articles » PMID: 24182593

Reproducibility of Bracket Positioning in the Indirect Bonding Technique

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2013 Nov 5
PMID 24182593
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Current studies have compared indirect bonding with direct placement of orthodontic brackets; many of these have shown that indirect bonding is generally a more accurate technique. However, the reproducibility of an indirect bonding setup by an orthodontist has yet to be described in the literature. Using cone-beam computed tomography and computer-assisted modeling software, we evaluated the consistency of orthodontists in placing orthodontic brackets at different times.

Methods: Five orthodontists with experience in indirect bonding were selected to place brackets on 10 different casts at 3 time periods (n = 30 per orthodontist). Each participant completed an initial indirect bonding setup on each cast; subsequent bracket placements were completed twice at monthly intervals for comparison with the initial setup. The casts were scanned using an iCAT cone-beam computed tomography scanner (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, Pa) and imported into Geomagic Studio software (Geomagic, Research Triangle Park, NC) for superimposition and analysis. The scans for each time period were superimposed on the initial setup in the imaging software, and differences between bracket positions were calculated. For each superimposition, the measurements recorded were the greatest discrepancies between individual brackets as well as the mean discrepancies and standard deviations between all brackets on each cast.

Results: Single-factor and repeated-measure analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences between time points of each orthodontist, or among the orthodontists for the parameters measured. The mean discrepancy was 0.1 mm for each 10-bracket indirect bonding setup.

Conclusions: Orthodontists are consistent in selecting bracket positions for an indirect bonding setup at various time periods.

Citing Articles

Accuracy of One-Piece vs. Segmented Three-Dimensional Printed Transfer Trays for Indirect Bracket Placement.

Alyammahi B, Khamis A, Ghoneima A Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(11).

PMID: 39590402 PMC: 11593319. DOI: 10.3390/dj12110352.


Evaluation of the accuracy of digital indirect bonding vs. conventional systems: a randomized clinical trial.

Soares Ueno E, de Carvalho T, Kanashiro L, Ursi W, Chilvarquer I, Neto J Angle Orthod. 2024; 95(1):3-11.

PMID: 39389581 PMC: 11662360. DOI: 10.2319/030624-179.1.


Comprehensive clinical evaluation of indirect and direct bonding techniques in orthodontic treatment: a single-centre, open-label, quasi-randomized controlled clinical trial.

Kono K, Murakami T, Tanizaki S, Kawanabe N, Fujisawa A, Nakamura M Eur J Orthod. 2024; 46(6).

PMID: 39364772 PMC: 11450403. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjae036.


Influence of the design of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays and experience of the clinician on the accuracy of bracket placement.

Sabbagh H, Hoffmann L, Wichelhaus A, Kessler A J Orofac Orthop. 2024; .

PMID: 38411719 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00517-2.


Indirect orthodontic bonding using an original 3D method compared with conventional technique: A narrative review.

Nucera R, Militi A, Caputo A, Bellocchio A, Minervini G, Cervino G Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(1):72-76.

PMID: 38375395 PMC: 10874802. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.09.009.