Literature DB >> 15210929

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

T M Hodge1, A A Dhopatkar, W P Rock, D J Spary.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of direct or indirect bracket placement.
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized comparison of 2 different methods of bracket placement.
SETTING: Queens Hospital, Burton upon Trent, UK between February and May 2001. MATERIALS AND
METHOD: Twenty-six consecutive patients requiring upper and lower MBT trade mark pre-adjusted Edgewise appliances had their labial segments bonded directly or indirectly according to a split mouth system of allocation. Before and after bond-up all brackets were photographed and measured from tracings to determine positional differences from the ideal.
RESULTS: Using ANOVA (General Linear Model), vertical errors were found to be greater than those in the horizontal plane, which in turn were greater than angular errors (p<0.05). Errors were greater in the maxillary arch than in the mandibular arch. There was no significant difference between the mean errors produced by the two methods of bracket placement.
CONCLUSIONS: Mean bracket placement errors were similar with both techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15210929     DOI: 10.1179/146531204225020427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthod        ISSN: 1465-3125


  19 in total

1.  Indirect orthodontic bonding--a modified technique for improved efficiency and precision.

Authors:  Lincoln Issamu Nojima; Adriele Silveira Araújo; Matheus Alves Júnior
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 May-Jun

2.  Influence of clinical experience on accuracy of virtual orthodontic attachment bonding in comparison with the direct procedure.

Authors:  Natalice S De Oliveira; Emile Rossouw; Elizabeth M B Lages; Soraia Macari; Henrique Pretti
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 3.  Indirect Bonding Revisited.

Authors:  Hande Pamukçu; Ömür Polat Özsoy
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2016-09-01

4.  Precision of indirect bonding of lingual brackets using the Quick Modul System (QMS)®.

Authors:  Katharina Schubert; Thomas Halbich; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Ralf Müller-Hartwich
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Standard vs computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized self-ligating systems using indirect bonding with both.

Authors:  Nastasia Jackers; Nathalie Maes; France Lambert; Adelin Albert; Carole Charavet
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Effectiveness of an indirect bonding technique in reducing plaque accumulation around braces.

Authors:  Domenico Dalessandri; Michela Dalessandri; Stefano Bonetti; Luca Visconti; Corrado Paganelli
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  A comparison of traditional and computer-aided bracket placement methods.

Authors:  Matthew Israel; Budi Kusnoto; Carla A Evans; Ellen Begole
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study.

Authors:  Thomas Pottier; Antoine Brient; Yann Loïg Turpin; Brice Chauvel; Vincent Meuric; Olivier Sorel; Damien Brezulier
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques.

Authors:  Ana E Castilla; Jennifer J Crowe; J Ryan Moses; Mansen Wang; Jack L Ferracane; David A Covell
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement with height bracket positioning gauge and boone gauge.

Authors:  Amir Mohammadi; Seyed Hossein Moslemzadeh
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2011-12-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.