A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement

Hodge, Trevor; Dhopatkar, Ashish; Rock, W P; Spary, D. J.

doi:10.1179/146531204225020427

Cited by 78 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…10 Similarly, a study using a photographic method to evaluate the accuracy of direct and indirect bracket placement found neither method to be error free, with no significant differences between the mean errors produced by the two methods of bracket placement. 16 More recently, two studies quantified differences in bracket position resulting from the bracket transfer using an in vitro design. 17,18 Brackets were transferred from initial working stone models, to which the brackets were bonded, to final "patient" models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding

Grünheid

Lee²,

Larson

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To elicit the magnitude, directional bias, and frequency of bracket positioning errors caused by the transfer of brackets from a dental cast to the patient's dentition in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: A total of 136 brackets were evaluated. The brackets were placed on dental casts and scanned using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to capture 3-D positioning data. The brackets were then transferred to the patient's dentition with an indirect bonding method using vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) trays and later scanned using CBCT to capture the final bracket positioning on the teeth. Virtual models were constructed from the two sets of scan data and digitally superimposed utilizing best-fit, surface-based registration. Individual bracket positioning differences were quantified using customized software. One-tailed t tests were used to determine whether bracket positioning was within limits of 0.5 mm in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and vertical dimensions, and 2u for torque, tip, and rotation. Results: Individual bracket positioning differences were not statistically significant, indicating, in general, final bracket positions within the selected limits. Transfer accuracy was lowest for torque (80.15%) and highest for mesiodistal and buccolingual bracket placement (both 98.53%). There was a modest directional bias toward the buccal and gingival. Conclusion: Indirect bonding using VPS trays transfers the planned bracket position from the dental cast to the patient's dentition with generally high positional accuracy. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:468-474.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding

Grünheid

Lee²,

Larson

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methodologic differences, however, make it difficult to compare specific individual bracket errors with those of other studies. [3][4][5] OrthoCAD had a significantly higher point average than the traditional IDB group on its upper premolars in both alignment and buccolingual inclination. The upper first premolars also received the highest point deductions for root angulation, though no statistical difference was found between sample groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research comparing the accuracy of the two techniques, both to each other and to the prescribed bracket position, has left much to be debated. [3][4][5] What has been fairly well agreed upon, however, is that neither technique provides the clinician with a consistent and accurate method of bracket placement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of traditional and computer-aided bracket placement methods

Israel¹,

Kusnoto

Evans

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the accuracy of bracket placement produced by OrthoCAD iQ indirect bonding (IDB) and that of an in-house fabricated IDB system by measuring the quality of intra-arch dental alignment at the end of simulated orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight artificial teeth were arranged to resemble a typical preorthodontic malocclusion. Forty-six sets of models were duplicated from the original malocclusion and randomly divided into two sample groups. Half of the models had their bracket positions selected by OrthoCAD, while the others were completed by a combination of faculty and residents in a university orthodontic department. Indirect bonding trays were fabricated for each sample and the brackets were transferred back to the original malocclusion following typical bonding protocol. The individual teeth were ligated on a .021 3 .025-inch stainless steel archwire to simulate their posttreatment positions. The two sample groups were compared using the objective grading system (OGS) originally designed by the American Board of Orthodontics. Results: The mean total OGS score for the OrthoCAD sample group was 39.25 points, while the traditional IDB technique scored 41.00 points. No statistical difference was found between total scores or any of the four components evaluated. Similar ranges of scores were observed, with the OrthoCAD group scoring from 30 to 52 points and the traditional IDB group scoring from 33 to 53 points. Conclusions: The hypothesis is not accepted. OrthoCAD iQ does not currently offer a system that can position orthodontic brackets better or more reliably than traditional indirect bonding techniques. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:828-835.)

show abstract

“…Braketlerin angulasyonları değer-lendirildiğinde indirekt yapıştırılan alt ve üst kanin braketlerinin ideale daha yakın olduğu bulunmuştur. 42 Hodge ve arkadaşlarının 49 yapmış olduğu braket konumlarının doğruluğunu araştıran bir başka klinik çalışmada sadece alt ve üst ön 6 diş (kesici dişler ve kanin dişleri) değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmaya 26 hasta dahil edilmiş ve aynı hastanın iki yarım çenesinde direkt braketleme, diğer iki yarım çenesinde ise indirekt braketleme yapılmıştır.…”

Section: Braket Konumunun Doğruluğuunclassified

“…Ancak, üst çenede alt çeneden daha fazla ve braketlerin dik yön konumlarında, meziodistal konumlarından daha fazla hata yapıldığı görülmüştür. 49 …”

Section: Braket Konumunun Doğruluğuunclassified

Ortodontide indirekt yapıştırma tekniği

Yildirim

Aydinatay

2015

Acta Odontol Turc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZETSabit ortodontik elemanların, bantlara gereksinim olmaksızın doğrudan dişler üzerine yapıştırıldığı 'Direkt Yapış-tırma Tekniği' ile braketleme için klinikte harcanan süre kısaltılmış, daha estetik ve hijyenik bir ortodontik tedavi uygulama imkanı elde edilmiştir. Ancak bu teknikte, özel-likle arka dişlere doğrudan görüş ve ulaşım sorunu gibi sebeplerle braket konumlarında hatalarla karşılaşılmıştır. Bu hataların önlenmesi amacıyla 'İndirekt Yapıştırma Tekniği' geliştirilmiştir. Bu tekniğin ilk geliştirildiği yıllarda gözlenen direkt yapıştırılan braketlere kıyasla bağlanma dayanımının daha az olması, yüksek braket kopma oranları, braketlerin etrafından taşan adezivlerin periodontal dokuları irrite etmesi ve oral hijyeni olumsuz etkilemesi, laboratuvar aşamasının uzun ve zaman alıcı olması gibi pek çok olumsuz özelliği günümüzde geliştirilen materyaller ve tekniklerle birlikte elimine edilmiştir. Günümüzde indirekt teknik ile yapıştırılan braketler, direkt yapıştırılan braketlerle benzer bağlanma dayanımı göstermektedir. Ayrıca indirekt ve direkt yapıştırma tekniklerinin, periodontal dokular üzerine etkileri de benzerdir. Ancak indirekt yapıştırma tekniği, hem laboratuvar hem de klinik aşamalarında daha fazla özen ve hassasiyet gerektirmektedir ve maliyeti daha yüksektir. Hekimin bu iki yapıştırma yönteminden hangisini seçeceği; laboratuvar süresi, klinik süresi, maliyet, hasta konforu gibi etkenler ve kendi kişisel tercihine bağlı olarak değişebilir.

show abstract

A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement

Abstract: Mean bracket placement errors were similar with both techniques.

Cited by 78 publications

References 7 publications

Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding

Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding

A comparison of traditional and computer-aided bracket placement methods

Ortodontide indirekt yapıştırma tekniği

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About