Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42351852›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Transfer Accuracy in Digital Indirect Bonding: A Methodological Umbrella Review of Definitions, Measurement Frameworks, and Evidence Synthesis.

Elisabetta Lalli, Alessio Verdecchia, Simone Parrini, Gabriele Rossini, Federico Ezequiel Malagraba, María Mónica Beti, Edoardo Marchese, Enrico Spinas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Elisabetta LalliDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Postgraduate School in Orthodontics, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-3188-5016
Alessio VerdecchiaDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Postgraduate School in Orthodontics, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0009-0002-3315-0112
Simone ParriniDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2501-4065
Gabriele RossiniPrivate Practice, 20100 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6862-9097
Federico Ezequiel MalagrabaOrthodontics Division, Universidad Católica de La Plata, La Plata 1900, Argentina.
María Mónica BetiOrthodontics Division, Universidad Católica de La Plata, La Plata 1900, Argentina.ORCID 0009-0004-4482-4471
Edoardo MarcheseDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Postgraduate School in Orthodontics, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy.
Enrico SpinasDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Postgraduate School in Orthodontics, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4563-9804

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transfer accuracy is widely used to evaluate orthodontic indirect bonding workflows, particularly in the context of digital CAD/CAM planning and three-dimensional bracket positioning. However, substantial heterogeneity in its definition, measurement, and reporting may limit comparability and clinical interpretability across systematic reviews. This methodological umbrella review examined how transfer accuracy is operationalized as an outcome construct, with specific focus on conceptual definitions, dimensional frameworks, reference systems, measurement pipelines, and interpretative strategies rather than pooled quantitative deviation estimates. A systematic search of major biomedical databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews evaluating transfer accuracy in orthodontic indirect bonding. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers using a predefined methodological mapping framework, and methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. Four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Across reviews, transfer accuracy was operationalized through heterogeneous linear and angular geometric deviation metrics derived from planned-achieved bracket position comparisons, without use of a standardized composite accuracy indicator. Nevertheless, substantial heterogeneity was found in outcome definitions, dimensional architectures, reference system selection, and analytical workflows, resulting in structurally non-equivalent representations of transfer accuracy and limiting cross-review comparability. Within the included systematic reviews, transfer accuracy functioned primarily as a workflow-dependent geometric measurement construct rather than as an outcome systematically operationalized within clinically validated frameworks. We recommend standardized construct definitions, mandatory reporting of reference systems and registration algorithms, routine uncertainty quantification, and harmonized dimensional frameworks as essential steps toward valid evidence synthesis, reproducible digital orthodontic workflows, and clinically interpretable transfer accuracy measurement.

Indexed as

bracket placement accuracydigital orthodonticsevidence synthesisindirect bondingmeasurement heterogeneitymethodological umbrella revieworthodonticsoutcome measurementreference systemstransfer accuracy

Identifiers

PMID42351852
PMCPMC13295476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.