Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques

Koo, Bon Chan; Chung, Chun-Hsi; Vanarsdall, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70248-9

Cited by 107 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vertical positioning errors may be caused by limitations during bonding, as improper visualization of the teeth's long axis due to malocclusion of the patient [5,16], optical distortion of the actual proximal dimensions of teeth, diminute brackets size and morphological teeth variability in different individuals [17][18][19]. These errors may cause several consequences such as tooth intrusion/ extrusion, uneven marginal ridges, changes in torque [17] and in the buccolingual position of the tooth [20], inadequate intercuspation and inability to attain mutually protected guidances [5], thereby increasing the risk of relapse [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These errors may cause several consequences such as tooth intrusion/ extrusion, uneven marginal ridges, changes in torque [17] and in the buccolingual position of the tooth [20], inadequate intercuspation and inability to attain mutually protected guidances [5], thereby increasing the risk of relapse [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study the process of measuring the casts was performed by three different examiners with the purpose of determining the actual outcome, since an assessment made by a single examiner might reflect solely her own clinical skills [15,17,18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous study reported that all techniques that use predetermined bracket placement values -including Alexander and Viazis -have limitations and may fail to level the marginal ridges by the end of orthodontic treatment [17]. Given the anatomical variability between individuals and the fact that the placement techniques were based on mean values, an individualized treatment is required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are the posterior bracket placement patterns reliable?

Mattielo¹,

Arruda²,

Xavier³

et al. 2016

Rev. Odonto Ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Investigate the marginal ridges leveling accuracy of Alexander and Viazis bracket placement methods. Methods: Eighty pairs of dental casts were selected, with complete permanent dentition, without occlusal wear or restorations. A linking line between mesial and distal ridges of posterior teeth was done to measure the occlusal thirds with digital caliper. The means, obtained from 3 different examiners, were compared with the values of Alexander and Viazis' equations through One-way ANOVA with α=0.05. Results: The second premolar placement value (x) suggested by the authors showed no difference in comparison to the occlusal third size of the sample teeth (p>0.05), however for the first premolars, a significant difference was found (p<0.001). The value adopted for positioning on the first permanent molars (x-0.5mm) is consistent with the size of the occlusal third of these teeth (p=0.0531). A significant difference was also found for the second permanent molars bracket positioning between the predefined value (x-1mm) and the sample (p<0.001). Conclusions: The vertical positioning values proposed by Alexander and Viazis for placement of second premolars and first permanent molars do contribute to the leveling of marginal ridges, which cannot be applied for the values recommended for the first premolars and second permanent molars.Key words: Dental bonding; Orthodontic appliances; Orthodontic brackets Os padrões de posicionamento posterior de bráquetes são confiáveis?ResuMO Objetivo: Verificar a precisão no nivelamento de cristas marginais dos padrões de posicionamento de bráquetes de Alexander e Viazis em dentes posteriores. Métodos: Foram selecionados 80 pares de modelos de gesso com dentição permanente completa e sem desgastes ou restaurações oclusais. Uma linha ligando as cristas marginais mesial e distal dos dentes foi demarcada, visando a medição do terço oclusal com um paquímetro digital milimetrado. As médias obtidas de 3 examinadores foram comparadas com os valores propostos por Alexander e Viazis através do teste de One-Way ANOVA com α=0,05. Resultados: O valor (x) proposto para o posicionamento nos segundos pré-molares não apresentou diferença com a dimensão do terço oclusal da amostra (p>0,05); entretanto para os primeiros pré-molares houve diferença significativa (p<0,001). O valor de posicionamento adotado para os primeiros molares permanentes (x-0,5mm) foi condizente com a dimensão do terço oclusal destes dentes (p=0,0531). Houve diferença significativa entre o valor (x-1mm) predifinido para os segundos molares permanentes e a amostra (p<0,001). Conclusões: Os valores de posicionamento de acessórios propostos por Alexander e Viazis para os segundos pré-molares e para os primeiros molares permanentes promovem o nivelamento das cristas marginais, entretanto o mesmo não ocorre para os primeiros pré-molares e segundos molares permanentes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are the posterior bracket placement patterns reliable?

Mattielo¹,

Arruda²,

Xavier³

et al. 2016

Rev. Odonto Ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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