Transfer Accuracy and Chairside Efficiency of Two Digital Indirect Bonding Techniques: An In Vitro Analysis

Background: Digital indirect bonding (IB) has emerged as a reliable approach to improving the precision and efficiency of orthodontic bracket placement. Methods: This in vitro study evaluated and compared the positional accuracy and efficiency of two digitally driven indirect bonding (IB) techniques—a rigid single-tooth transfer jig (Leone Jig System) and a flexible three-part transfer tray (IBT Flex Resin)—as well as conventional direct bonding. Ten sets of 3D-printed resin dental models were randomly allocated to the three bonding protocols. Bracket positions were virtually planned and analyzed by superimposing pre- and post-bonding STL models using landmark- and surface-based registration. Linear discrepancies were measured along the axial, sagittal, and vertical planes, and data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Friedman tests (α = 0.05). Results: Both indirect bonding techniques showed significantly smaller deviations from the ideal virtual setup compared with direct bonding across all spatial planes (p < 0.001). Mean discrepancies were consistently below 0.3 mm for the indirect protocols, compared with values exceeding 0.4 mm for direct bonding. The rigid jig demonstrated the highest precision, particularly in the sagittal (0.18 ± 0.06 mm) and vertical (0.21 ± 0.07 mm) planes, while the flexible tray showed slightly higher deviations (approximately 0.25–0.30 ± 0.08–0.09 mm across planes). Chairside bonding time per full arch was reduced by more than 50% with both IB techniques, with the jig-based system being the most time-efficient. No significant interaction between bonding method and spatial plane was observed. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, digital indirect bonding—especially rigid, patient-specific jigs—demonstrated superior bracket placement accuracy and procedural efficiency compared with direct bonding.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2025-12-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010285
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transfer Accuracy and Chairside Efficiency of Two Digital Indirect Bonding Techniques: An In Vitro Analysis

Enrico Spinas, Alessandro Ugolini, Valentina Lanteri, Alessandro Bruni et al.
Applied Sciences
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Transfer Accuracy and Chairside Efficiency of Two Digital Indirect Bonding Techniques: An In Vitro Analysis

Enrico Spinas, Alessandro Ugolini, Valentina Lanteri, Alessandro Bruni, Maria Elena Grecolini, Andrea Abate, Cristiana Nocco, Mimmo Castellana
article en

Abstract

Background: Digital indirect bonding (IB) has emerged as a reliable approach to improving the precision and efficiency of orthodontic bracket placement. Methods: This in vitro study evaluated and compared the positional accuracy and efficiency of two digitally driven indirect bonding (IB) techniques—a rigid single-tooth transfer jig (Leone Jig System) and a flexible three-part transfer tray (IBT Flex Resin)—as well as conventional direct bonding. Ten sets of 3D-printed resin dental models were randomly allocated to the three bonding protocols. Bracket positions were virtually planned and analyzed by superimposing pre- and post-bonding STL models using landmark- and surface-based registration. Linear discrepancies were measured along the axial, sagittal, and vertical planes, and data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and Friedman tests (α = 0.05). Results: Both indirect bonding techniques showed significantly smaller deviations from the ideal virtual setup compared with direct bonding across all spatial planes (p < 0.001). Mean discrepancies were consistently below 0.3 mm for the indirect protocols, compared with values exceeding 0.4 mm for direct bonding. The rigid jig demonstrated the highest precision, particularly in the sagittal (0.18 ± 0.06 mm) and vertical (0.21 ± 0.07 mm) planes, while the flexible tray showed slightly higher deviations (approximately 0.25–0.30 ± 0.08–0.09 mm across planes). Chairside bonding time per full arch was reduced by more than 50% with both IB techniques, with the jig-based system being the most time-efficient. No significant interaction between bonding method and spatial plane was observed. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, digital indirect bonding—especially rigid, patient-specific jigs—demonstrated superior bracket placement accuracy and procedural efficiency compared with direct bonding.

Applied SciencesVol. 16(1)
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT), University of Cagliari (IT), American Association of Orthodontists (US), Innovation Engineering (Italy) (IT), University of Genoa (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.