Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Direct versus fully digital indirect bracket bonding: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial on accuracy.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of thermoformed tray architecture on transfer accuracy of lingual brackets: A prospective clinical study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Usefulness of an artificial intelligence-assisted indirect bonding method for optimizing orthodontic bracket positioning.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Simplified ABO-OGS orientation improves training of orthodontic bracket positioning for undergraduate dental students.BMC medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary aim is to assess differences in accuracy of orthodontic bracket positioning between fully digital indirect bracket bonding (IDB) and conventional direct bracket bonding (DBB). The secondary aims are to assess differences in bracket bonding failures, bracket repositioning need, clinician experience and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study was designed as a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. In total, 35 patients were analyzed with a six month follow-up period. Translational and orientational deviations from the planned bracket position were determined. Clinician experience and patient satisfaction were evaluated by means of a survey.
resultsThe difference in translation was 0.34 mm (95% CI: 0.238-0.352, p = 0.017), the difference in orientation was 4.80˚ (95% CI: 3.858-5.727, p < 0.001), both in favour of IDB. IDB showed significantly more immediate (IDB: 3.9%, DBB: 0%) and late (IDB: 5.4%, DBB: 2.5%, p = 0.008) bonding failures. Clinicians and patients experienced a shorter clinical chair time with indirect bonding over direct bonding.
conclusionsIDB bracket positioning leads to significant smaller translation and orientation deviations from digital IDB planning, than DBB bracket positioning. However, IDB leads to more immediate bonding failures than DBB. The majority of patients preferred IDB over DBB, due to a shorter clinical chair time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study adds to the knowledge of IDB in orthodontics and contributes to evidence on this technique. This evidence is applicable in everyday orthodontics, with respect to patient satisfaction and technical limits of IDB. The trial was registered in the Dutch Trial Register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization (WHO), number NL9411.
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.