ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D printed indirect bonding trays: transfer accuracy of bar vs shell design in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Trial
- Comparison of the accuracy of two techniques for three-dimensional digital indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A randomized controlled trial.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Trial
- Transfer Accuracy in Digital Indirect Bonding: A Methodological Umbrella Review of Definitions, Measurement Frameworks, and Evidence Synthesis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digitally Planned Orthodontic Tooth Movement in a Fully Customized Self-Ligating Lingual System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Precision and Practicality: A Novel Cellulose Gum-Based Indirect Bonding Protocol for Orthodontic Bracket Placement.Cureus · 2025Article
- Influence of the design of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays and experience of the clinician on the accuracy of bracket placement.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
- Transfer accuracy and chairside efficiency of rigid- and flexible-printed versus double vacuum-formed lingual indirect bonding trays: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Chair-Time During Polishing with Different Burs and Drills After Cement Customized Brackets Bonding: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Effect of fence tray matching care on excess adhesive and bracket placement accuracy for orthodontic bonding: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Indirect orthodontic bonding using an original 3D method compared with conventional technique: A narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- The Influence of Indirect Bonding Technique on Adhesion of Orthodontic Brackets and Post-Debonding Enamel Integrity-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB).
methodsSystematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method.
resultsA total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.