Bonding techniques in lingual orthodontics differ slightly from their counterparts in labial treatment, although there are many shared features. If protocols are followed correctly, bonding outcomes are very predictable and lingual bracket bonding can be integrated into a mixed orthodontic practice with the minimum of disruption. Here, we highlight the fundamentals of both chemical and light/dual cure bonding procedures using lingual appliances, and discuss special bonding circumstances. Although not exhaustive, this article will provide essential information for those operators embarking on the bonding of lingual appliances.
ShpackN, GeronS, FlorisI, DavidovitchM, BroshT, VardimonAD. Bracket placement in lingual versus labial systems and direct versus indirect bonding. Angle Orthod2007; 77: 509–17.
2.
AguirreMJ, KingGJ, WaldronJM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod1982; 82: 269–76.
3.
LinnBJ, BerzinsDW, DhuruVB, BradleyTG. A comparison of bond strength between direct- and indirect-bonding methods. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 289–94.
4.
ThiyagarajahS, SparyDJ, RockWP. A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod2006; 33: 198–204.
5.
SohMS, YapAU, SiowKS. Comparative depths of cure among various curing light types and methods. Oper Dent2004; 29: 9–15.
6.
Cal-NetoJP, CastroS, MouraPM, RibeiroD, MiguelJA. Influence of enamel sandblasting prior to etching on shear bond strength of indirectly bonded lingual appliances. Angle Orthod2011; 81: 149–52.
