Accurate bracket positioning is one of the keys for effective orthodontic treatment. Traditionally, orthodontic brackets are positioned one-by-one on the teeth of the patient, with the so-called direct bonding method. In the past, the term indirect bonding defined a technique where the brackets were positioned on a plaster model in order to increase placement precision. A transfer tray was then built on the plaster, incorporating all the brackets mounted. Finally, this transfer tray was positioned in the mouth of the patient, so that all the brackets could be bonded to the teeth at once in the pre-determined position. Several studies have investigated this indirect technique based on plaster models. With computer-aided technology, a new form of digital indirect bonding is now possible. The dentist digitally places the brackets on a virtual 3D model of the teeth. A tray with the brackets' positioning information is then generated with CAD-CAM (computer aided design and manufacturing) technology and the brackets are subsequently indirectly transferred to the teeth. This new approach could possibly save chair time and increase precision. Our profession is today moving towards the virtual reality, and application of such a computer-aided technology method into the clinical work-flow seems definitely promising for our future daily practice. Since the evidence about this new computer-assisted indirect bracket bonding method is very limited, the purpose of this study is to evaluate precision, chair time, and bracket survival by comparing this digital indirect bonding method to the traditional direct bonding method Specific objectives * To assess and compare the accuracy of a conventional direct bonding method with an indirect computer-aided bonding method. * To evaluate chair time and bracket survival related to both bonding methods. Hypothesis Null hypothesis: I. There is no difference in accuracy of bracket placement between the direct and indirect bonding methods. II. There is no difference in chair time between the two bonding methods. III. Bracket bond failure is similar for both bonding methods. Alternative hypothesis: I. Bracket placement is more precise/accurate with the indirect bonding method compared to the traditional direct bonding method. II. Indirect bonding reduces chair time.
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Time
Timeframe: On the day the brackets are bonded (bonding date): within 24 hours