Trial reportEuropean journal of orthodontics2026
Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding accuracy and bonding failures. A split mouth randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this randomized controlled trial were to compare the accuracy of computer-aided indirect bonding with conventional direct bonding, and to evaluate bracket survival.
methodsConsecutive patients were randomly allocated to two groups (blocks of four, online generated sequence) using a split-mouth design with a computer-aided indirect and a direct bonding method: group 1 (upper right and lower left quadrants: computer-aided indirect bonding; upper left and lower right quadrants: direct bonding) or group 2 (opposite situation). Modified ABO-OGS scores were calculated at the end of treatment. Bracket bonding failures, as well as bracket rebondings and finishing bends because of inaccurate bracket positioning were recorded at every visit. The primary outcome was bracket placement accuracy. The secondary outcome was bracket survival. Outcome assessment was blinded. To compare bracket placement accuracy, paired t-tests were used together with linear mixed models. For the survival analysis, a piecewise Cox model was used.
resultsThirty-seven patients were randomized to group 1 or group 2. Twenty-seven patients were analyzed for bracket survival, and 26 for ABO-OGS scores. There was no significant difference (P = 0.76, 95% CI: -1.18, 0.87) in mean modified ABO-OGS scores between both methods. Among the brackets bonded with computer-aided indirect bonding, 66 brackets (27%) needed rebonding or finishing bends because of inaccurate positioning. Fifty-six brackets bonded with direct bonding (23%) were rebonded or required finishing bends because of inaccurate bracket positioning. The bonding method did not appear to significantly influence the proportion of teeth needing rebonding/wire bending because of inaccurate bracket positioning. A total of 44 out of 532 brackets got debonded throughout treatment: 22 debonded brackets were totalized with each bonding method (8.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in survival between both bonding techniques. The hazard ratio (HR) computer-aided indirect bonding to direct bonding during the first year was estimated at 1.15 (P = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.61, 2.17). After the first year, the HR indirect to direct was estimated at 0.46 (P = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09, 2.53). No harm was observed.
conclusionsThere were no statistically significant differences in bonding accuracy and in bracket survival between computer-aided indirect and direct bonding methods. REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (University of Aarhus Protocol Record 10101). PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
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.