Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Bozelli,Jefferson Vinicius
Data de Publicação: 2013
Outros Autores: Bigliazzi,Renato, Barbosa,Helga Adachi Medeiros, Ortolani,Cristina Lucia Feijo, Bertoz,Francisco Antonio, Faltin Junior,Kurt
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512013000600009
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the time spent for direct (DBB - direct bracket bonding) and indirect (IBB - indirect bracket bonding) bracket bonding techniques. The time length of laboratorial (IBB) and clinical steps (DBB and IBB) as well as the prevalence of loose bracket after a 24-week follow-up were evaluated. METHODS: Seventeen patients (7 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 21 years, requiring orthodontic treatment were selected for this study. A total of 304 brackets were used (151 DBB and 153 IBB). The same bracket type and bonding material were used in both groups. Data were submitted to statistical analysis by Wilcoxon non-parametric test at 5% level of significance. RESULTS: Considering the total time length, the IBB technique was more time-consuming than the DBB (p < 0.001). However, considering only the clinical phase, the IBB took less time than the DBB (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference (p = 0.910) for the time spent during laboratorial positioning of the brackets and clinical session for IBB in comparison to the clinical procedure for DBB. Additionally, no difference was found as for the prevalence of loose bracket between both groups. CONCLUSION: the IBB can be suggested as a valid clinical procedure since the clinical session was faster and the total time spent for laboratorial positioning of the brackets and clinical procedure was similar to that of DBB. In addition, both approaches resulted in similar frequency of loose bracket.
id DPI-1_a4fd8b94f0c3b7e4119c6511ca7c3dfc
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2176-94512013000600009
network_acronym_str DPI-1
network_name_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository_id_str
spelling Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachmentCorrective orthodonticsOrthodontic bracketsDental bondingDental detachmentOBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the time spent for direct (DBB - direct bracket bonding) and indirect (IBB - indirect bracket bonding) bracket bonding techniques. The time length of laboratorial (IBB) and clinical steps (DBB and IBB) as well as the prevalence of loose bracket after a 24-week follow-up were evaluated. METHODS: Seventeen patients (7 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 21 years, requiring orthodontic treatment were selected for this study. A total of 304 brackets were used (151 DBB and 153 IBB). The same bracket type and bonding material were used in both groups. Data were submitted to statistical analysis by Wilcoxon non-parametric test at 5% level of significance. RESULTS: Considering the total time length, the IBB technique was more time-consuming than the DBB (p < 0.001). However, considering only the clinical phase, the IBB took less time than the DBB (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference (p = 0.910) for the time spent during laboratorial positioning of the brackets and clinical session for IBB in comparison to the clinical procedure for DBB. Additionally, no difference was found as for the prevalence of loose bracket between both groups. CONCLUSION: the IBB can be suggested as a valid clinical procedure since the clinical session was faster and the total time spent for laboratorial positioning of the brackets and clinical procedure was similar to that of DBB. In addition, both approaches resulted in similar frequency of loose bracket.Dental Press International2013-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512013000600009Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.18 n.6 2013reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodonticsinstname:Dental Press International (DPI)instacron:DPI10.1590/S2176-94512013000600009info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBozelli,Jefferson ViniciusBigliazzi,RenatoBarbosa,Helga Adachi MedeirosOrtolani,Cristina Lucia FeijoBertoz,Francisco AntonioFaltin Junior,Kurteng2015-06-23T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2176-94512013000600009Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/dpjoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpartigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com2177-67092176-9451opendoar:2015-06-23T00:00Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
title Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
spellingShingle Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
Bozelli,Jefferson Vinicius
Corrective orthodontics
Orthodontic brackets
Dental bonding
Dental detachment
title_short Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
title_full Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
title_fullStr Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
title_full_unstemmed Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
title_sort Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment
author Bozelli,Jefferson Vinicius
author_facet Bozelli,Jefferson Vinicius
Bigliazzi,Renato
Barbosa,Helga Adachi Medeiros
Ortolani,Cristina Lucia Feijo
Bertoz,Francisco Antonio
Faltin Junior,Kurt
author_role author
author2 Bigliazzi,Renato
Barbosa,Helga Adachi Medeiros
Ortolani,Cristina Lucia Feijo
Bertoz,Francisco Antonio
Faltin Junior,Kurt
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Bozelli,Jefferson Vinicius
Bigliazzi,Renato
Barbosa,Helga Adachi Medeiros
Ortolani,Cristina Lucia Feijo
Bertoz,Francisco Antonio
Faltin Junior,Kurt
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Corrective orthodontics
Orthodontic brackets
Dental bonding
Dental detachment
topic Corrective orthodontics
Orthodontic brackets
Dental bonding
Dental detachment
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the time spent for direct (DBB - direct bracket bonding) and indirect (IBB - indirect bracket bonding) bracket bonding techniques. The time length of laboratorial (IBB) and clinical steps (DBB and IBB) as well as the prevalence of loose bracket after a 24-week follow-up were evaluated. METHODS: Seventeen patients (7 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 21 years, requiring orthodontic treatment were selected for this study. A total of 304 brackets were used (151 DBB and 153 IBB). The same bracket type and bonding material were used in both groups. Data were submitted to statistical analysis by Wilcoxon non-parametric test at 5% level of significance. RESULTS: Considering the total time length, the IBB technique was more time-consuming than the DBB (p < 0.001). However, considering only the clinical phase, the IBB took less time than the DBB (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference (p = 0.910) for the time spent during laboratorial positioning of the brackets and clinical session for IBB in comparison to the clinical procedure for DBB. Additionally, no difference was found as for the prevalence of loose bracket between both groups. CONCLUSION: the IBB can be suggested as a valid clinical procedure since the clinical session was faster and the total time spent for laboratorial positioning of the brackets and clinical procedure was similar to that of DBB. In addition, both approaches resulted in similar frequency of loose bracket.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512013000600009
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512013000600009
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S2176-94512013000600009
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press International
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press International
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.18 n.6 2013
reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
instname:Dental Press International (DPI)
instacron:DPI
instname_str Dental Press International (DPI)
instacron_str DPI
institution DPI
reponame_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
collection Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv artigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com
_version_ 1754122396784132096