COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFICACY OF TWO TECHNIQUES OF INDIRECT BRACKET POSITIONING ON TREATMENT OUTCOME IN EXTRACTION CASES OF CLASS I MALOCCLUSION

Background: Accurate bracket positioning is crucial in orthodontics to achieve desired tooth movement. Two primary
techniques exist: direct bonding, where brackets are attached directly to teeth, and indirect bonding, which utilizes a
transfer tray. There is limited evidence comparing the clinical efficacy of conventional indirect bonding (CIB) versus
digital indirect bonding (DIB), particularly in Class I malocclusion cases requiring extraction treatments.
Aim: To compare the efficacy of CIB and DIB in patients with Class I malocclusion undergoing extraction orthodontic
treatment.
Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 28 patients with Class I malocclusion scheduled for extraction orthodontic
treatment were randomly assigned to either the CIB or DIB group. Both groups underwent initial impressions to create plaster models. In the CIB group, brackets were positioned on the plaster models and transferred to the teeth using a vacuum-formed transfer tray. In the DIB group, plaster models were scanned to create 3D digital models, and brackets were positioned and transferred using a 3D-printed tray. Baseline assessments included the discrepancy index, and treatment outcomes were evaluated using the Objective Grading System (OGS).
Results: The CIB and DIB groups were comparable in terms of median age (20 vs. 21, P=1.000) and gender distribution (71.4% vs. 57.1% male, P=0.695). Baseline discrepancy index scores were similar between groups (22 vs. 30, P=0.653).
There was no significant difference in median total OGS scores between the CIB and DIB groups (14 vs. 12, P=1.000).
Conclusion: Both conventional and digital indirect bonding techniques are effective for bracket positioning in the
extraction orthodontic treatment of patients with Class I malocclusion.