en POLSKI
ISSN: 1734-1558
Forum Ortodontyczne / Orthodontic Forum
Current issue Archive About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
2/2020
vol. 15
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Review article

Comparison of direct and indirect bonding methods for orthodontic brackets. Literature review

Marcin Szerszeń
1
,
Julia Wiśniewska
2
,
Monika Garbacz
3
,
Anastazja Żuławnik
1
,
Małgorzata Zielonka
2
,
Barbara Pietrzak-Bilińska
3

1.
Katedra Protetyki Stomatologicznej, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny

Department of Prosthodontic, Medical University of Warsaw

2.
Studenckie Koło Naukowe, Zakład Ortodoncji, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny

Students’ Scientific Group, Department of Orthodontics, Medical Univeristy of Warsaw

3.
Zakład Ortodoncji, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny

Department of Orthodontics, Medical University of Warsaw

Forum Ortod 2020; 16 (2): 101-7
Online publish date: 2020/07/18
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
It is vital to position brackets correctly in three planes in order to provide appropriate and effective orthodontic treatment. Direct bracket bonding (DBB) and indirect bracket bonding (IBB) methods are currently used in orthodontic treatment.

Aim
The aim of the study was to compare a direct and indirect bracket bonding method for orthodontic brackets based on the review of available literature.

Material and methods
Using PubMed, Science- Direct, Wiley, EBSCOhost databases, articles on DBB and IBB with the following keywords: direct bracket bonding, indirect bracket bonding, comparison of indirect and direct bonding and their Polish translation were found. 28 articles from the period of 1972–2019 describing the issues that most corresponded to the aim of the work were qualified for a review.

Results
Available literature did not show a statistically significant difference in the percentage of detached brackets when IBB or DBB was used. Regarding direct bracket bonding (DBB), unscheduled bracket detachment is usually observed within 24–48 hours since its attachment. Regarding indirect bracket bonding (IBB), unscheduled bracket detachment is usually observed when a transfer splint is removed. Both methods provide comparable adhesion in the case of teeth crowding, irrespective of its stage. Studies analysed are inconclusive in relation to the effects of both methods on the dental plaque accumulation around orthodontic brackets.

Conclusions
1) The quality of the bond between the enamel and orthodontic adhesive obtained by using different positioning techniques is comparable. 2) There are no differences regarding the loss of brackets between these two methods. 3) Regarding the indirect method, a bracket becomes detached the most frequently when a transfer splint is removed. 3) In the case of crowding, both direct and indirect bracket bonding offers good adhesion quality. 5) Increased dental plaque accumulation is mainly associated with excess orthodontic adhesive in both methods.

keywords:

direct bracket bonding, indirect bracket bonding