Transfer Accuracy and Chairside Efficiency of Two Digital Indirect Bonding Techniques: An In Vitro Analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Digital indirect bonding (IB) has emerged as a reliable approach to improving the precision and efficiency of orthodontic bracket placement. Methods: This in vitro study evaluated and compared the positional accuracy and efficiency of two digitally driven indirect bonding (IB) techniques—a rigid single-tooth transfer jig (Leone Jig System) and a flexible three-part transfer tray (IBT Flex Resin)—as well as conventional direct bonding. Ten sets of 3D-printed resin dental models were randomly allocated to the three bonding protocols. Bracket positions were virtually planned and analyzed by superimposing pre- and post-bonding STL models using landmark- and surface-based registration. Linear discrepancies were measured along the axial, sagittal, and vertical planes, and data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Friedman tests (α = 0.05). Results: Both indirect bonding techniques showed significantly smaller deviations from the ideal virtual setup compared with direct bonding across all spatial planes (p < 0.001). Mean discrepancies were consistently below 0.3 mm for the indirect protocols, compared with values exceeding 0.4 mm for direct bonding. The rigid jig demonstrated the highest precision, particularly in the sagittal (0.18 ± 0.06 mm) and vertical (0.21 ± 0.07 mm) planes, while the flexible tray showed slightly higher deviations (approximately 0.25–0.30 ± 0.08–0.09 mm across planes). Chairside bonding time per full arch was reduced by more than 50% with both IB techniques, with the jig-based system being the most time-efficient. No significant interaction between bonding method and spatial plane was observed. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, digital indirect bonding—especially rigid, patient-specific jigs—demonstrated superior bracket placement accuracy and procedural efficiency compared with direct bonding.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Surgical, Medical and Dental Department of Morphological Sciences Related to Transplant, Oncology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124 Modena, Italy
Private Practice, 10019 Strambino, Italy
Private Practice, 73100 Lecce, Italy
Orthodontic Dental Laboratory, 70042 Mola di Bari, Italy
Department of Sciences Integrated Surgical and Diagnostic, University of Genova, 16126 Genova, Italy
Department of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. Francisco, I., Ribeiro, M.P., Marques, F., Travassos, R., Nunes, C., Pereira, F., Caramelo, F., Paula, A.B., and Vale, F. (2022). Application of three-dimensional digital technology in orthodontics: The state of the art. Biomimetics, 7.10.3390/biomimetics7010023 ↗
2. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital indirect bonding vs. conventional systems: A randomized clinical trial10.2319/030624-179.1 ↗
3. Bracket positioning have an impact on smile arc protection–a systematic review and meta-analysis10.3329/bjms.v24i3.82964 ↗
4. Bracket positioning in orthodontics: Past and present10.1016/j.xaor.2023.01.001 ↗
5. Accuracy of bracket placement by orthodontists and inexperienced dental students
6. Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: Bonding time, immediate bonding failures, and cost-minimization. A randomized controlled trial10.1093/ejo/cjaa045 ↗
7. Comparative assessment of treatment efficacy and adverse effects during nonextraction orthodontic treatment of Class I malocclusion patients with direct and indirect bonding: A parallel randomized clinical trial10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.009 ↗
8. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90264-3 ↗
9. Li, Y., Mei, L., Wei, J., Yan, X., Zhang, X., Zheng, W., and Li, Y. (2019). Effectiveness, efficiency and adverse effects of using direct or indirect bonding technique in orthodontic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health, 19.10.1186/s12903-019-0831-4 ↗
10. Efficient and effective indirect bonding10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70252-0 ↗
11. Accuracy of indirect bracket placement with medium-soft, transparent, broad-coverage transfer trays fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing: An in-vivo study10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.08.023 ↗
12. Kalange, J.T. (2007). Prescription-based precision full arch indirect bonding. Seminars in Orthodontics, Elsevier.10.1053/j.sodo.2006.11.005 ↗
13. Transfer Accuracy of 3D-Printed Customized Devices in Digital Indirect Bonding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1155/2023/5103991 ↗
14. Linear and angular transfer accuracy of labial brackets using three dimensional-printed indirect bonding trays: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1016/j.ortho.2022.100612 ↗
15. Effectiveness and efficiency of indirect bonding techniques: An umbrella review with meta-analysis of the pooled findings10.1016/j.ortho.2025.101036 ↗
16. Glasenapp, J.v., Hofmann, E., Süpple, J., Jost-Brinkmann, P.-G., and Koch, P.J. (2022). Comparison of two 3D-printed indirect bonding (IDB) tray design versions and their influence on the transfer accuracy. J. Clin. Med., 11.10.3390/jcm11051295 ↗
17. Three-dimensional evaluation of the transfer accuracy of a bracket jig fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing to the anterior dentition: An in vitro study10.4041/kjod.2021.51.6.375 ↗
18. Jungbauer, R., Breunig, J., Schmid, A., Hüfner, M., Kerberger, R., Rauch, N., Proff, P., Drescher, D., and Becker, K. (2021). Transfer accuracy of two 3D printed trays for indirect bracket bonding—An in vitro pilot study. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11136013 ↗
19. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed bracket transfer tray using an in-office indirect bonding system10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.04.025 ↗
20. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting: In-vitro: Studies in experimental dental research10.4103/0972-0707.136338 ↗
21. Reproducibility of digital indirect bonding technique using three-dimensional (3D) models and 3D-printed transfer trays10.2319/030919-176.1 ↗
22. Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology in customized orthodontic appliances10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00500.x ↗
23. Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.029 ↗
24. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding10.2319/013120-70.1 ↗
25. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00503-1 ↗
26. Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.017 ↗
27. Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: A retrospective in vivo study10.1007/s00784-021-03792-0 ↗
28. Comparison of 1-and 3-piece directly 3-dimensional printed indirect bonding trays: An in vitro study10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.07.015 ↗
29. Clinical Study on Efficiency of Using Traditional Direct Bonding or OrthGuide Computer-Aided Indirect Bonding in Orthodontic Patients10.1155/2022/9965190 ↗