ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2024
Does clinical experience affect the bracket bonding accuracy of guided bonding devices in vitro?
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is bracket bonding with guided bonding devices accurate enough for crowded dentition?Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study whether and how the clinical experience of the operator affects the accuracy of bracket placement using guided bonding devices (GBDs) in vitro. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive resin models were bonded virtually with brackets, and the corresponding GBDs were generated and three-dimensionally printed. Nine operators, which included three dental students, three orthodontic students, and three orthodontists, bonded the brackets on the resin models using GBDs on a dental mannequin. After being bonded with brackets, the models were scanned, and the actual and designed positions of the brackets were compared.
resultsThere was no immediate debonding. The orthodontists spent a significantly shorter time (22.36 minutes) in bracket bonding than the dental students (24.62 minutes; P < .05). The brackets tended to deviate to the buccal side in the dental student group. Linear deviations tended to be smallest in the orthodontic student group, but no significant difference was found among operators with different clinical experience (P > .5). All linear and angular deviations in each group were under 0.5 mm and 2°, respectively.
conclusionsClinical experience was positively related to the bonding accuracy using GBDs, especially in the buccolingual dimension. Inexperience also led to longer bonding duration. However, bonding accuracy was clinically acceptable in general.
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.