Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Comparison of Bracket Placement Accuracy Between Direct and Indirect Bonding: A Literature Review

Mohammed Alsalem*, Mashael Al Thunayan

The Medical Cities at the Ministry of Interior – MCMOI, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract: This literature review aims to systematically investigate and compare the accuracy of direct and indirect bracket placement techniques, assessing whether one method demonstrates superiority over the other. A systematic search was conducted to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials across the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science. Results show that overall accuracy of bracket placement was not significantly different between the two techniques. Indirect bonding does not result in more accurate bracket placement compared to direct bonding.

Keywords: Orthodontics, indirect bonding, direct bonding, bracket placement accuracy

Received October 08, 2024; Revised November 10, 2024; Accepted November 17, 2024

Citation: Mohammed Alsalem, Mashael Al Thunayan, Comparison of Bracket Placement Accuracy Between Direct and Indirect Bonding: A Literature Review. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research, 12 (4). 53-54. January 2024. doi:10.12691/ijdsr-12-4-1

1. Introduction

Accurate bracket placement is widely recognized as a critical determinant of effective orthodontic treatment, influencing treatment duration and minimizing adverse effects. Improper bracket positioning can result in undesired tooth movements, including rotations, incorrect tipping, intrusion, extrusion, and inappropriate torque.

Buccal bracket placement can be accomplished via two primary techniques: direct bracket bonding (DBB) and indirect bracket bonding (IBB). The conventional method, DBB, involves chairside placement of brackets on each individual tooth. Conversely, IBB, introduced by Silverman and Cohen in 1972, utilizes a prefabricated tray to bond all brackets simultaneously.

Two principal advantages of IBB over DBB have been proposed: enhanced accuracy in bracket placement and reduced chairside time. Although initial studies indicated minimal differences in positioning accuracy between the two methods, recent advancements in technology and software have further refined IBB, improving bracket placement precision and decreasing the necessity for mid-treatment repositioning or wire adjustments.

This literature review aims to systematically investigate and compare the accuracy of direct and indirect bracket placement techniques, assessing whether one method demonstrates superiority over the other.

2. Materials and Methods

This review is not registered with any organization. The research adhered to the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (www.prisma-statement.org) [1,2].

3. Search Strategy

A systematic search was conducted to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials across the following databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), and Web of Science. No restrictions were applied concerning language or year of publication. Additionally, a supplementary manual search was carried out by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent articles.

4. Selection Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were established for this review: (1) Study design: randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) Participants: individuals requiring orthodontic treatment involving the two different bonding techniques; (3) Outcomes: bracket placement accuracy. The exclusion criteria included case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, case reports, in vitro studies, literature reviews, conference abstracts, and letters, as well as studies involving participants with systemic diseases.

5. Results

Out of the eight included randomized clinical trials, only two measured the accuracy of bracket placement. These two randomized clinical trials found no significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Meta-analysis of the bracket placement accuracy was not performed due to the methodological differences and extensive heterogeneity.

Overall accuracy of bracket placement was not significantly different between the two techniques. Vertical placement errors were significantly greater than errors in the mesiodistal plane (P< .05). Error ranges for combined tooth types were smaller with indirect bonding (0.27mm) as compared to direct bonding (1.81mm).

Indirect bonding was on average more accurate in bracket height (P<.05), with no significant differences between the two techniques in terms of angulation or mesiodistal position.

6. Discussion

In a systematic review [3], eight studies were included after a broad search to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials in several databases with no restrictions on language or year of publication. Another study used a split mouth technique and enrolled 26 patients with malocclusion from the waiting list of Queens Hospital, Burton on Trent. Cases where the initial malocclusion prevented ideal bracket placement were excluded, and the accuracy of bracket placement was only studied on incisors and canines [4]. Another study asked nine orthodontists to bond 18 pretreatment models with class II malocclusion form second premolar to second premolar [5]. Each orthodontist performed direct bonding on one model and indirect bonding on another identical model. Each bonded tooth was then sectioned and photographed to measure bracket placement accuracy. Perspective: Several factors should be considered when an orthodontist decides to bond brackets directly or indirectly. These factors may include reducing chairside time, improving clinical efficiency, and reducing overhead cost of the practice. Based on the current evidence, however, achieving accurate bracket placement does not seem to be a significant factor in that decision.

The subject pool of the first two studies included people with malocclusions who required treatment with upper and lower full arch fixed appliances. The third study used pretreatment models of patients with class II malocclusion. All studies showed no significant differences in the accuracy of bracket placement between the two techniques. However, the range of vertical placement errors was less with the indirect bonding method. There are several factors to be considered when deciding between direct vs. indirect bonding in orthodontic treatment. Chairside time, treatment effectiveness and efficiency are some examples. However, accuracy of bracket placement cannot be justified as a reason to choose indirect bonding over direct bonding.

7. Conclusion

Indirect bonding does not result in more accurate bracket placement compared to direct bonding. This is supported by randomized clinical trials and an in-vitro study, in which the accuracy of bracket placement was not significantly different between the two techniques. More clinical evidence is needed to determine if the type of malocclusion has an effect on the accuracy of bracket placement in the two techniques.

References

[1]   | Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1): 263.
[2]   | Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011; 39(2): 91–2.
[3]   | Li Y, Mei L, Wei J, Yan X, Zhang X, Zheng W, Li Y. Effectiveness, efficiency and adverse effects of using direct or indirect bonding technique in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jul 8; 19(1): 137.
[4]   | Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, Spary DJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod. 2004 Jun; 31(2): 132-7.
[5]   | Koo BC, Chung CH, Vanarsdall RL. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Sep; 116(3): 346-51.