Pauline M J Hoekstra-van Hout, Jan Willem M Hoekstra, Robin Bruggink, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Edwin M Ongkosuwito
{"title":"Direct versus fully digital indirect bracket bonding: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial on accuracy.","authors":"Pauline M J Hoekstra-van Hout, Jan Willem M Hoekstra, Robin Bruggink, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Edwin M Ongkosuwito","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-05950-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IDB 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.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"28 10","pages":"557"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11438723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05950-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The 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 methods: This 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.
Results: The 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.
Conclusions: IDB 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.
期刊介绍：
The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
