Bond failure rate of computer aided versus traditional bracket placement for indirect bonding technique: In vivo study | ||
| Mansoura Journal of Dentistry | ||
| Article 12, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages 56-62 PDF (312.24 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjd.2020.198740 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Amira Hesham fathy Boghdady1; Shaza Hammad2; Ahmad mohammad Hafez3 | ||
| 1BDS, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University (2013)Clinical demonstrator, Department of Orthodontics, Kafr EL Shikh University | ||
| 2Professor of OrthodonticsHead of Orthodontics DepartmentFaculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of Orthodontics OrthodonticsDepartmentFaculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Objective: To compare bond failure rates between traditional (Method I) and computer aided (Method II) indirect techniques for bonding orthodontic brackets. Design: prospective randomized controlled clinical trial with split mouth design. Materials and methods: fifteen subjects meeting the inclusion criteria were selected from orthodontic waiting lists and assigned to either of two study groups according to a split-mouth study design. The number of bracket failures with each group was recorded during the procedure, after first wire insertion and over a period of three months. Results: seventeen brackets were lost from the 300 bonded teeth, giving an overall bond failure rate of (5.7%). There were 9 initial failures; 4 brackets of method I (2.7%) and 5 brackets of method II (3.3%). At 3-months follow up, 8 additional failures occurred; 6/146 in method I (4.1%) and 2/145 in method II (1.4%). There were no statistically significant differences in either the initial or the overall bond failure rates between the two methods. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the overall bond failure rates between digital (computer aided) and manual (traditional) indirect bonding techniques. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 197 PDF Download: 272 |
||
