Direct and Indirect Bonding Techniques: A Systematic Review


  • Paolo Albertini
  • Laura Mele
  • Mario Palone
  • Francesca Cremonini


Dental Materials, Dentin-Bonding Agents, Orthodontic Brackets


Objective: To assess the scientific evidence on direct and indirect bonding techniques to analyse the differences related to treatment time, number of appointments and number of bracket detachments. Material and Methods: The MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched through to March 2021. Reference lists from the retrieved publications were also examined. The following article types that described data on the different types of direct and indirect bonding techniques in orthodontics were included: prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCTs). Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and ascertained the quality of the studies. Results: The search strategy initially resulted in 824 articles, and after a careful selection comprising the inclusion criteria, 12 articles were picked for the final review, specifically 2 cohort studies, 4 case-control studies and 6 RCCTs. The methodological quality was low in 4 studies, medium in 2, and high in 6 articles. Conclusion: The evidence currently available suggests that the use of computer-aided bonding is related to a reduction in treatment time and the number of appointments compared to direct and manual indirect bonding. However, the total bonding time for computer-aided bonding technique, including digital bracket placement, was longer than for direct bonding. Further high-quality RCTs on the differences between direct and indirect bonding are necessary to determine more precise data, as well as additional advantages and disadvantages.


Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod 1965; 51(12):901-12.

Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1972; 62(3):236-44.

Hocevar RA. Direct bonding metal brackets with concise - enamel bond system. J Clin Orthod 1977; 11(7):473-82.

Hocevar RA. Direct bonding update. J Clin Orthod 1979; 13(3):172-5.

Thomas RG. Indirect bonding: simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod 1979; 13(2):93-106.

Read MJ. Indirect bonding using a visible light cured adhesive. Br J Orthod 1987; 14(3):137-41.

Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115(4):352-9.

Pisani L, Bonaccorso L, Fastuca R, Spena R, Lombardo L, Caprioglio A. Systematic review for orthodontic and orthopedic treatments for anterior open bite in the mixed dentition. Prog Orthod 2016; 17(1):28.

Carlson SK, Johnson E. Bracket positioning and resets: five steps to align crowns and roots consistently. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119(1):76-80.

McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Bracket placement with the preadjusted appliance. J Clin Orthod 1995; 29(5):302-11.

Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G. Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod 2014; 15(1):53.

Lombardo L, Toni G, Stefanoni F, Mollica F, Guarneri MP, Siciliani G. The effect of temperature on the mechanical behavior of nickel-titanium orthodontic initial archwires. Angle Orthod 2013; 83(2):298-305.

Lopez MA, Andreasi Bassi M, Confalone L, Gaudio RM, Lombardo L, Lauritano D. The influence of conical plus octagonal internal connection on implant survival and success rate: a retrospective study of 66 fixtures. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016; 30(2 Suppl 1):49-54.

Lopez MA, Andreasi Bassi M, Confalone L, Gaudio RM, Lombardo L, Lauritano D. Retrospective study on bone-level and soft-tissue-level cylindrical implants. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016; 30(2 Suppl 1):43-8.

Lopez MA, Andreasi Bassi M, Confalone L, Gaudio RM, Lombardo L, Lauritano D. Clinical outcome of 215 transmucosal implants with a conical connection: a retrospective study after 5-year follow-up. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016; 30(2 Suppl 1):55-60.

Manfredini D, Stellini E, Gracco A, Lombardo L, Nardini LG, Siciliani G. Orthodontics is temporomandibular disorder-neutral. Angle Orthod 2016; 86(4):649-54.

Lombardo L, Carinci F, Martini M, Gemmati D, Nardone M, Siciliani G. Quantitive evaluation of dentin sialoprotein (DSP) using microbeads - a potential early marker of root resorption. Oral Implantol 2016; 9(3):132-142.

Perrini F, Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Medori S, Siciliani G. Caries prevention during orthodontic treatment: In-vivo assessment of high-fluoride varnish to prevent white spot lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149(2):238-43.

Arreghini A, Trigila S, Lombardo L, Siciliani G. Objective assessment of compliance with intra- and extraoral removable appliances. Angle Orthod 2017; 87(1):88-95.

Czolgosz I, Cattaneo PM, Cornelis MA. Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding time, immediate bonding failures, and cost-minimization. A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2021; 43(2):144-51.

Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT, editors. Formulating the problem. Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.2 [updated March 2004]; Section 4. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7):e1000097.

Sharif MO, Janjua-Sharif FN, Ali H, Ahmed F. Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly. Oral Health Dent Manag 2013; 12(1):9-16.

Berger VW, Alperson SY. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2009; 4(2):79-88.

Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25(9):603-5.

Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14:45.

Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes B, et al. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. 2009. Available from: [Accessed on January 12, 2021].

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available from: [Accessed on January 12, 2021].

Thiyagarajah S, Spary DJ, Rock WP. A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod. 2006; 33(3):198-204.

Saxe AK, Louie LJ, Mah J. Efficiency and effectiveness of SureSmile. World J Orthod 2010; 11(1):16-22.

Miles P. Indirect bonding--do custom bases need a plastic conditioner? A randomised clinical trial. Aust Orthod J 2010; 26(2):109-12.

Alford TJ, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK Jr, Eckert GJ, Snyder RJ. Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile™ method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod 2011; 81(3):383-8.

Weber DJ 2nd, Koroluk LD, Phillips C, Nguyen T, Proffit WR. Clinical effectiveness and efficiency of customized vs. conventional preadjusted bracket systems. J Clin Orthod 2013; 47(4):261-6.

Bozelli JV, Bigliazzi R, Barbosa HA, Ortolani CL, Bertoz FA, Faltin Junior K. Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment. Dental Press J Orthod 2013; 18(6):51-7.

Menini A, Cozzani M, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Cozzani P, Gandini P. A 15-month evaluation of bond failures of orthodontic brackets bonded with direct versus indirect bonding technique: a clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2014; 15(1):70.

Haeger RS. Analyzing clinical metrics of indirect bonding and self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 2015; 49(1):49-52.

Brown MW, Koroluk L, Ko CC, Zhang K, Chen M, Nguyen T. Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148(6):1067-74.

Murakami T, Kawanabe N, Kataoka T, Hoshijima M, Komori H, Fujisawa A, et al. A Single-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Indirect Bonding Technique. Acta Med Okayama 2016; 70(5):413-416.

Penning EW, Peerlings RHJ, Govers JDM, Rischen RJ, Zinad K, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Orthodontics with Customized versus Noncustomized Appliances: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Dent Res 2017; 96(13):1498-1504.

Lombardo L, Stefanoni F, Mollica F, Laura A, Scuzzo G, Siciliani G. Three-dimensional finite-element analysis of a central lower incisor under labial and lingual loads. Prog Orthod 2012; 13(2):154-63.

Di Fazio D, Lombardo L, Gracco A, D’Amico P, Siciliani G. Lip pressure at rest and during function in 2 groups of patients with different occlusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139(1):e1-6.

Kalange JT. Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the advantages. World J Orthod 2004; 5(4):301-7.




How to Cite

Albertini, P. ., Mele, L. ., Palone, M. ., & Cremonini, F. (2021). Direct and Indirect Bonding Techniques: A Systematic Review. Pesquisa Brasileira Em Odontopediatria E Clínica Integrada, 21, e0027. Retrieved from



Systematic Reviews (and Meta-Analysis)