A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding

Thiyagarajah, S.; Spary, D. J.; Rock, W P

doi:10.1179/146531205225021615

Cited by 48 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies report significant differences in the SBS of directly and indirectly bonded systems. Some exceptions include Thiyagarajah et al 40) , who compared the clinical performance of the direct and indirect techniques, as well as Linn et al 9) and Daub et al 41) , who observed no significant differences in the SBS of the two techniques. Comparisons should be interpreted carefully and with discernment by the reader, as most of the previous studies related to indirect bonding 9,40,41) have investigated different techniques of bonding procedures with two different types of materials, such as light-cured and chemically cured, but these materials require the application of a conditioner agent such 37% phosphoric acid 21) , , which have showed higher mean values of SBS than the self-etching system 34,35) that has been analyzed in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This in vitro study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of two systems for bonding orthodontic brackets to enamel. The first system involved a self-etching primer (Beauty Ortho Bond, BO) containing surface pre-reacted glass filler. The second involved a primer applied with phosphoric acid etching (Transbond XT, TX). Ninety-six extracted human premolars were divided into eight groups: Group I (TX/direct bonding), Group II (TX/indirect bonding), Group III (BO/direct bonding), and Group IV (BO/indirect bonding). Groups V-VIII were identical to Groups I-IV, respectively, but were also subjected to 1,500 thermal cycles between 5 and 55°C. ARI was scored by binocular microscopy. SBS was analyzed by three-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test. ARI was analyzed by the chi-squared test. The BO groups showed lower SBS and ARI results than the TX groups. SBS was significantly influenced by the primer material, bonding technique, and thermal cycling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Çeşitli araştırmalarda, hem indirekt hem de direkt teknikte braketlerin dişler üzerinde en doğru konumda pozisyonlandırılabilmesinin mümkün olabildiği belirtilmiştir. [17][18][19][20][21] Hekime bağlı yorgunluk, yoğunluk faktörlerinin braketlerin doğru konumda yapıştırılmasına etki edebilmesi mümkün görülmektedir. Bu durum, tedavi süresininın uzamasına ve sonuçta hasta hayat kalitesinin düşmesine neden olabilmektedir.…”

Section: Bulgularunclassified

The Evaluation Of Clinical Chair Time And Bracket Failure Rates Between Direct And Indirect Bonding Methods

Di̇ndaroğlu¹,

Dogan²,

Doğan³

2016

EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZETAmaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; direkt ve indirekt yöntem ile yapılan braket yapıştırma işleminde, klinikte geçen çalışma zamanı ve birinci ayda gözlenen braket kopma miktarlarını karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı'na ortodontik tedavi amacıyla başvuran hafif ya da orta şiddette çapraşıklığı olan Angle sınıf I maloklüzyonuna sahip toplam 40 birey çalışmaya dâhil edilmiştir. Hastalar rastgele iki gruba ayrılarak 20 kişinin üst çenesine indirekt yapıştırma yöntemi uygulanırken, alt çenesine direkt yöntemle yapıştırma yapılmıştır. Diğer 20 hastada ise, üst çenede direkt, alt çenede ise indirekt yöntem kullanılmıştır. Uygulama esnasında her iki yöntemde de hasta başında geçen süre ve ilk ayda braketlerde görülen kopma miktarları tespit edilmiştir. Verilerin istatistiksel değerlendirilmesinde bağımsız iki örnek t testi kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel önem sınırı p<0.05 olarak alınmıştır. Bulgular: İndirekt yöntem ile klinikte hasta başında geçen ortalama süre 13,2 ± 4,1 dakika iken, direkt yöntemde bu süre ortalama 27,3 ± 7,2 dakika olarak bulunmuştur. Yöntemler arasında bulunan fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p<0.05). Yapıştırmadan sonraki birinci ayda indirekt yöntemde gözlenen ortalama braket kopma miktarı 0,98 ± 0,67 iken, direkt yöntemde birinci ayda gözlenen braket kopma miktarı ise 1,01 ± 0,76'dır. Sonuç: İndirekt yapıştırma yöntemi hasta başında geçen süreyi yaklaşık iki kat azaltmaktadır. Bir aylık gözlem süresince braket kopma miktarı açısından direkt yöntem ile indirekt yöntem arasında farklık yoktur. Anahtar Kelimeler: direkt yapıştırma, indirekt yapıştırma, klinik çalışma zamanı, braket kopma miktarı

show abstract

“…Thiyagarajah et al (46) used light-cured resin (Transbond XT) for both direct and indirect bonding. Thirty-three patients were included in the study and were followed up for 1 year.…”

Section: In Vivo Studies Of the Indirect Bonding Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect Bonding Revisited

Pamukçu¹,

Özsoy²

2017

Turk J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the popularity of indirect bonding increased due to advantages such as reduction of chair time and enhancement of patient comfort. Although the indirect bonding technique has improved over the years, the literature has shown different techniques of bracket placement; furthermore, new materials were specially developed for this technique. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the literature, advantages, disadvantages, and laboratory and clinical stages of the indirect bonding technique. Keywords: Indirect bonding, bonding systems, orthodontics indirect technique INTRODUCTIONIndirect bonding was developed by Silverman and Cohen (1) in 1972 to reduce clinical time and to enhance patient comfort. In this method, they used cement for attaching brackets to the stone model, a sealant as a clinical adhesive, and thermoplastic trays for the transfer of the brackets. In 1979, Thomas (2) invented "custom composite base technique, " which is still the most widely accepted technique currently used for indirect bonding. In this technique, Thomas used a chemically-cured resin for attaching the brackets in a laboratory and a universal and a catalyst resin as the clinical adhesive. The major complication of the Thomas technique is that the polymerization of the chemical resin starts in the patient's mouth, which is problematic in terms of time. If the transfer tray was removed before the completion of polymerization, bracket failure can be seen, and if the tray was left in the mouth for too long, this can disrupt the patient comfort. To solve this problem, the Thomas technique was modified; the universal and catalyst resins were mixed outside the mouth and directly applied to the teeth and custom base (3). With the modified Thomas technique, indirect bonding achieved similar bond strength values compared with direct bonding.In the previous literature, chemically-cured resins were usually used as clinical adhesives for indirect bonding. Apart from these resins, glass ionomer cements, acrylic epoxy adhesives, and cyanoacrylates were also used (4-6).Read and O'Brien (7) used light-cured resins for indirect bonding in 1990, and with the advantages of these resins, the indirect bonding technique was further enhanced.In 2002, Miles (8) used a flowable composite in indirect bonding. The most important advantage of this resin was to fill the voids of the custom base with its favorable viscosity.With the advancement of technology, computers entered the practice of orthodontics, thereby enhancing the indirect bonding technique. Several companies offer three-dimensional computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (3D CAD-CAM)-generated methods for the fabrication of indirect bonding trays. In one of these, Suresmile (Orametrix Inc.; Dallas, USA) system (9), teeth are scanned using an intraoral scanner, and computer generated 3D images are produced. These 3D images are used for digital set-up, and the brackets are placed in appropriate regions of the teeth. The customized transfer trays for in...

show abstract

A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding

Abstract: There was no significant difference in the bond failure rates between direct and indirect bonding.

Cited by 48 publications

References 19 publications

Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler

Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler

The Evaluation Of Clinical Chair Time And Bracket Failure Rates Between Direct And Indirect Bonding Methods

Indirect Bonding Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About