| Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of bracket placement for a newsimplified indirect bonding technique, as well as to evaluate the simplifiedindirect bonding with chemically cured direct bonding of bracket in the totaloperation time, clinical operation time and the failure rates.Methods: In vitro study, in group (A,B,C,D,E), 30 extractedpremolars were mounted in acrylic blocks; in the other (A′,B′,C′,D′,E′),alginate impressions were made and stone models were trimmed for groupA,B,C,D,E. The brackets were bonded with the new simplified indirectbonding techniques. Digital photos were taken in group A,B,C,D,E as thegroup before translation, in group A′,B′,C′,D′,E′as the after translation.The position of each bonded bracket from these two bonding groups wascompared with that of the same tooth in terms of bracket height, mesiodistalposition, and angulation by the Photoshop 9.0.In vivo study, twenty-two patients (9 males and 13 females), whoseaverage age was 12.6 years (rang 11 to 16 years) with malocclusion, wererandomly divided into 2 groups. One group was treated with simplifiedindirect bonding, the other with chemically cured direct bonding. Record thetotal operation time, clinical operation time and the failure rates respectively.Result: There was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of bracket placement in terms of bracket height, mesiodistal position, andangulation between before and after translation (p＞0.05). In vivo study, theresults showed that the total operation time of indirect bonding was 0.27hours more than that of direct bonding. But the clinical operation time is 0.33hours less. The difference of the two indexes was significant statisticallywhile the failure rate had not significant difference.Conclusion: The simplified indirect boding can reduce laboratory costsand chairtime, not to mention stress to the orthodontist, staff, and patients.Our results indicated that the new simplified indirect bonding technique isefficient and effective. |
PDF Full Text Request