Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 12, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding time, immediate
Izabela Czolgosz1, Paolo M Cattaneo2, Marie A Cornelis2
1Private Practice, Torun, Poland.
Introduction:
The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the time for bracket bonding using either direct or computer-aided indirect bonding; a secondary aim was to assess immediate bracket debondings and cost minimization.
Methods:
Consecutive patients were randomly allocated to two groups (blocks of four, online-generated sequence) using a split-mouth design with a direct and a computer-aided indirect bonding method: group 1 (upper right and lower left quadrants: indirect bonding; upper left and lower right quadrants: direct bonding) or group 2 (opposite situation). The primary outcome was difference in time spent for bonding brackets. The secondary outcome was immediate bracket debondings (at the bonding appointment). Time for indirect bonding was recorded in two steps: digital bracket placement and clinical bonding procedure. Outcome assessment was blinded. Friedman's ANOVA test was used to assess differences in bonding time. Chi-square test was used to compare immediate debondings. A cost-minimization analysis was undertaken.
Results:
Thirty-seven patients were randomized to group 1 or 2. Ten patients were excluded: 15 patients were analyzed in group 1 and 12 in group 2. Clinical chair time for bonding half a mouth was significantly shorter for computer-aided indirect bonding (12 minutes 52 seconds) than for direct bonding (16 minutes 47 seconds) (P < 0.001). When adding the time for digital bracket placement, the total bonding time (28 minutes 14 seconds) was longer for indirect bonding than for direct bonding (P < 0.001). There was no single immediate debonding with the direct bonding method, while 14 brackets were lost with the indirect bonding method (5.1 per cent) (P = 0.0001). Cost-minimization analysis showed that computer-aided indirect bonding was more expensive than direct bonding.
Conclusions:
The clinical chair time was significantly shorter for computer-aided indirect bonding than for direct bonding. However, the total bonding time for computer-aided indirect, including digital bracket placement, was longer than for direct bonding. There were significantly more immediate debondings with computer-aided indirect bonding than with direct bonding. Under these conditions, computer-aided indirect bonding was more expensive than direct bonding.
Registration:
This trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (University of Aarhus Protocol Record 10101).
Protocol:
The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
