[Brackets positioning errors and available solutions. A review of the literature]

Due to many innovations, bonding in the sense of bracket positioning is continually remodeling itself. Therefore, we wanted to define what a good bonding was and how to achieve it, both by identifying factors that could alter it and by evaluating the bonding assistances currently available. We carried out the synthesis of 65 comparative studies from PubMed. The inter-individual variations in dental morphologies are greater than the differences in the prescriptions available for the brackets. Tweed's bonding procedure at constant heights alters the leveling of the marginal ridges of the posterior teeth. The gauge improves the vertical positioning of the brackets, regardless of the clinician's experience. There is no clinical evidence to a superior efficiency of individualized techniques. The prescriptions of Mc Laughlin and Bennettseem more aesthetic than those of Andrews for the anterior teeth. The avail of indirect bonding is not obvious. Individualization is necessary in lingual technique, but does not allow better results in vestibular technique compared to conventional standardization. Evolutions are to be expected with the modeling of the individual biological response to induced tooth movement. While digital assistance is promising, it does not replace the expertise of the orthodontist.