A DIRECT BONDING TECHNIQUE VERSUS AN INDIRECT BONDING TECHNIQUE - AN IN VIVO ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i4.49663Keywords:
In vivo, Split mouth design, Indirect bonding, Direct bonding.Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to compare the clinical performance of an indirect versus a direct bonding technique in a split mouth study design and to develop a reproducible and cost efficient technique for indirect bonding for clinical use.
Methods: This comparative study was conducted on Twelve patients (212 teeth; 106 each in direct and indirect group) who reported to the Department of Dentistry at Ruxmaniben deepchand gardi medical college, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. Transbond XT (3M Unitek) adhesive and primer were used to bond the brackets onto the teeth in both the direct and indirect bonding groups using split mouth study design. Transfer trays constructed using Thermal glue matrix applied through hot glue gun for indirect bonding. The clinical performance was assessed for 6 months.
Results: In the 1st month was a failure of one lower 2nd premolar bracket from the indirect bonding group (p=1.00). There on in the subsequent months there were no failures for 6 months. The study showed no statistically significant differences in clinical performance in both group (p=NS).
Conclusion: The failure rates for both the indirect and direct bonding techniques in this study were the same. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The indirect bonding technique used in this study was found to be an effective and efficient means of bonding orthodontic brackets. Transbond XT and thermal glue matrix found to be suitable choice for use in indirect bonding technique for clinical use.
Downloads
References
Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontics attachments: Progress report. Am J Orthod. 1965;51:901-12.
Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly A, Dietz V. A universal direct bonding system for metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1972;62:236-44.
Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod. 1978;74:62-78.
Fried KH, Newman GV. Indirect bonding with a no-mix adhesive. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17:414-5.
White LW. New and improved indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod. 1999;33:17-23.
Rajagopal R, Venkatesan A. A new indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod. 2004;38:600-2.
Thomas RG. Indirect bonding simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod. 1979 Feb;13:93-106.
Mccrostie HS. Indirect bonding simplified. J Clin Orthod. 2003;5: 248-51.
Fortini A, Giuntoli F, Franchi L. A simplified indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod.2007;11:680-3.
Polat O, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirect-bonding resins. Angle Orthod. 2004;3:405-9.
Thiyagarajah S, Spary DJ, Rock WP. A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod. 2006;33:198-204.
Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:269-76.
Miles PG, Weyant RJ. A clinical comparison of two chemically cured adhesives used or indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod. 2003;30:331-6.
Kalange JT. Indirect bonding: A comprehensive review of the advantages. World J Orthod. 2004;5:301-7.
Sondhi A. Effective and efficient indirect bonding: The Sondhi method. Semin Orthod. 2007;13:43-57.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Dr.Ananya Bhargava, Dr.Apoorva Bhargava
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
