Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 2, 2026
Standard Test Method ASTM D 7998-19 for the Cohesive Strength Development of Wood Adhesives
Published on: May 17, 2020
Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques
Ana E Castilla1, Jennifer J Crowe, J Ryan Moses
1a Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Objective:
To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques.
Materials And Methods:
Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double-PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n = 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques.
Results:
Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n = 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n = 1; P < .05). With one exception, all significant differences were ≤0.26 mm and most (65%) were ≤0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction.
Conclusions:
Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent.
