Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the time-consuming and bonding effectiveness of full dental arch and segmented dental arch, when double transparent pressure diaphragm technology was used for indirect bracket bonding. METHODS： Forty-five orthodontic cases were selected, and classified into 3 groups according to different bonding methods and arches. There were 15 cases in each group, a total of 270 brackets and 120 buccal tubes were used. Patients in group A and B received double transparent pressure diaphragm technology to bond brackets indirectly. Among them, full dental arch tray was applied in group A, segmented dental arch tray was applied in group B; the brackets was bonded directly in group C. High posterior teeth pad did not affect the mandibular bracket during occlusion. The amount of time to bond brackets in group A and B (started from brackets bonding to the end of light-cure) was recorded as T1, the time of making arches was recorded as T2 (started from pressed film to the end of the arches made) and the average chair-side time of group A, B and C (started from acid etching in the mouth until all brackets are finished bonding and curing). Time-consuming of each stage in group A, B, immediate bracket failure rate and immediate buccal tube failure rate in group A, B, C were compared. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in T1 and T2 between group A and B (P>0.05). T2 in group A was significantly less than in group B (P<0.05). Immediate buccal tube and braces failure rate in group A was significantly greater than in group B and C. CONCLUSIONS: Using double transparent pressure diaphragm technology to bond bracket indirectly is convenient and simple. The segmented dental arch is more time-consuming compared to full dental arch. However, the immediate bracket failure rate is lower.

Key words: Brackets, Indirect-bonding, Transfer tray