Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2024
3D printed indirect bonding trays: transfer accuracy of bar vs shell design in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.
Trial report 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding accuracy and bonding failures. A split mouth randomized controlled trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of automated tooth landmark localization on digital models.The Angle orthodontist · 2026Article
- Effect of thermoformed tray architecture on transfer accuracy of lingual brackets: A prospective clinical study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Effect of Material and Processing Lag Time on Radiant Energy Penetration and Modulus of 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding Jig Materials.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- Usefulness of an artificial intelligence-assisted indirect bonding method for optimizing orthodontic bracket positioning.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- AI-Assisted Design of 3D-Printed Lingual Indirect Bonding Trays: A Comparative Evaluation of Bracket Transfer Accuracy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the transfer accuracy of two different indirect bonding (IDB) trays. MATERIALS AND
methodsDigital IDB was performed on a total of 30 patients using one of two designs: shell and bar trays, with 15 patients in each group. Trays were designed with the Appliance Designer software (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). Angular (torque, tip, angulation) and linear (mesiodistal, buccolingual, occlusogingival) differences were compared between the bonded intraoral scans taken immediately after IDB and the virtually bracketed model prepared in Ortho Analyzer software (3Shape A/S) using open source GOM inspect software (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany).
resultsThere were no significant differences found between the bar and shell groups. Within the groups, significant tip differences were found between the incisors, canines, and premolars in both groups (P = .0001). Additionally, a statistically significant torque difference was found in the canines and incisors in the shell group. The percentage of values that deviated from the clinical acceptance limit was relatively higher in the bar group.
conclusionsAlthough there was no statistical difference between groups, the shell tray showed better results according to clinical acceptability limits. This study is important as it is the first clinical study to compare directly printed transfer trays with different designs.
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.