A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets

Silverman, E; Cohen, Morton; Gianelly, Anthony A.; Dietz, Victor S.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9416(72)90264-3

Cited by 177 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,6 The present results provide insight into the positional accuracy resulting from the transfer of brackets from the indirect cast setup to the patient's teeth in several ways: the direction and frequency of bonding errors as well as how frequently the brackets "hit the target" and are placed within clinically acceptable limits. Moreover, the results may shed new light on several widely held assumptions regarding the pattern of indirect bonding errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In contrast, the indirect method is a two-stage procedure: In the first stage, the brackets are placed onto a dental cast of the patient's teeth; in the second stage the brackets are transferred from the cast to the patient's teeth using custom-made trays or jigs. Since Silverman et al 5 first described an indirect bonding method in 1972, this approach has increased in popularity due to some significant advantages such as unimpaired visibility during bracket positioning, improved patient comfort, and reduced chair time. [6][7][8][9] Most importantly, it has been suggested that with the indirect method, the brackets can be placed more accurately 10 because the positioning is completed away from many of the clinical constraints and variables that complicate the direct method such as moisture control, patient management, or a hurried schedule.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Newman described the first use of acid-etching in bonding orthodontic brackets with an epoxy-derived resin 3,4) . In 1972, Silverman and Cohen 5) introduced the first indirect bonding process, in which the brackets before bonding were positioned on a cast model of the patient, and then successively transferred to the patient's mouth via customized trays. Development of this technique reduced the chair time and operator stress, increased the precision and accuracy of bracket placement, reduced the need for re-bonding, and, consequently, reduced enamel loss 6,7) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Direct bonding procedures involve bonding brackets onto the teeth in the dental arch during the same session; in the indirect technique, first implemented by Cohen in 1972 (Silverman &Cohen, 1972), brackets are bonded following certain laboratory procedures.…”

Section: Bonding Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%