[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-417011-105":59,"doc-detail-417011-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":127,"head_meta":129,"extra_data":131,"updated_unix":133},105,"en","evaluation-of-bracket-positioning-a-customized-system-versus-the-conventional-method","Evaluation of Bracket Positioning - A Customized System Versus the Conventional Method","","Objective: Evaluate bracket positioning in customized versus conventional bonding methods based on Andrews’ bracket-placement approach. Methods: Twenty-six patients were enrolled, with 11 treated using the Insignia system and 15 using Kalange’s method. Crown length was measured on digital diagnostic models, the facial axis (FA) point was calculated, and bracket position was assessed along the vertical axis to determine deviation per Andrews. Teeth with significant deviation (TSD, >0.5 mm) were identified and analyzed by frequency and percentage. Results: TSD occurred in 56.65% (Insignia) versus 69.5% (modified Kalange), with significant between-group differences (p=0.003).",{"@graph":69,"@context":126},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/evaluation-of-bracket-positioning-a-customized-system-versus-the-conventional-method/417011/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/evaluation-of-bracket-positioning-a-customized-system-versus-the-conventional-method/417011.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"awa","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118,122],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the primary objective of this study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To evaluate bracket positioning in customized and conventional bonding methods according to Andrews’ approach to bracket placement.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were the brackets positioned and deviations measured?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Crown length was measured on digital models, the facial axis (FA) point was calculated, and bracket position was measured along the vertical axis; deviation was determined using Andrews’ method with TSD defined as >0.5 mm.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which group showed a higher rate of significant deviation (TSD)?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The modified Kalange group showed a higher TSD percentage (69.5%) than the Insignia group (56.65%), and the between-group difference was significant (p=0.003).",{"name":123,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":124},"How did anterior bracket positioning compare with posterior positioning?",{"text":125,"@type":113},"In both methods, anterior brackets had a higher TSD percentage than posterior brackets, and the deviation was predominantly occlusal or incisal (Insignia 86.9%; modified Kalange 97.6%).","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":128,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":130,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":132,"site_id":62},417011,1790767922,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":135},{"doc_id":132,"user_id":136,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":29,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":52,"language":143,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":144,"faqs":145,"seo_title":146,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":147,"read_time":148,"preview_page_count":4},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2025.2025.44  \n206  \nOriginal Article  \nEvaluation of Bracket Positioning; A Customized System Versus the Conventional Method  \n Kübra Sucu1,  Mete Özer2  \n1Vocational School of Health Services, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye  \n2Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Samsun, Türkiye  \nCite this article as: Sucu K, Özer M. Evaluation of bracket positioning; a customized system versus the conventional method. Turk J Orthod. 2025; 38(4): 206-215  \nMain Points  \n• Bracket placement varies in vertical position on the clinical crown depending on the method used, with differences observed among the Insignia system, the Kalange method, and Andrews' bracket-positioning approach.  \n• In both the Insignia system and the Kalange method, brackets tend to be positioned more incisally or occlusally relative to the facial axis point.  \n• In the Insignia system and Kalange method, anterior brackets are positioned more incisally than posterior brackets.  \nABSTRACT  \nObjective: To evaluate the positioning of brackets in customized and conventional bonding methods in accordance with Andrews'approach to bracket placement.  \nMethods: Twenty-six patients were enrolled; 11 were treated with the Insignia system and 15 with Kalange's method. Crown length was measured on a digital diagnostic model and the facial axis (FA) point was calculated. After leveling and alignment, a new digital model was created, and the bracket position was measured along the vertical axis. The distance between the bracket position and the FA point was calculated, and the deviation was determined according to Andrews' method. Teeth with significant deviation (TSD), i.e.,>0.5 mm, were identified. Frequencies and percentages ofTSD were calculated.  \nResults: The TSD percentage was 56.65% in the Insignia group and 69.5% in the modified Kalange group; the difference between groups was significant (p=0.003) . The anterior and posterior regions differed significantly within groups: in the Insignia group, this difference was observed in the maxilla (p=0.002), whereas in the modified Kalange group it was observed in both the mandible and maxilla (P < 0.001) . In both groups, the anterior TSD percentage was higher than the posterior TSD percentage in both the maxilla and the mandible. The deviation was predominantly occlusal or incisal: Insignia group, 86.9%; modified Kalange group, 97.6% .  \nConclusion: In the Insignia system and Kalange's method, brackets are positioned more incisally/occlusally relative to Andrews' FA point. In both methods, anterior brackets are positioned more incisally than posterior brackets.  \nKeywords: Bracket placement, Insignia, Kalange, Andrews  \nINTRODUCTION  \nThe straight-wire appliance (SWA) is widely used in orthodontic treatment. In this technique, accurate bracket placement is the most crucial stage of treatment. If the bracket is not ideally placed, unplanned tooth movement occurs, leading to changes in the tip, torque, and rotation of the tooth. To rectify this error, archwire bending or bracket repositioning is usually necessary to achieve the desired outcome. 1,2  \nCorresponding author: Lec. Kübra Sucu, e-mail: [kubra.sucu@sbu.edu.tr](kubra.sucu@sbu.edu.tr)  \n[Received:](Received: April 10)[ April 10](Received: April 10), [2025](2025 Accepted: October 28)[ Accepted:](2025 Accepted: October 28)[ October 28](2025 Accepted: October 28), 2025 Publication Date: 30.12.2025  \nCopyright© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Galenos Publishing House on behalf of Turkish Orthodontic Society.  \nThis is an open access article under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.  \nAs a pioneer of the SWA technique, Andrews introduced two concepts related to bracket placement: the facial axis of the clinical crown (FACC) and the facial axis (FA) point. The FACC is defined as the long axis passing through the center of the facial surface of the ","cbCaifEq0ztYfPuR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifEq0ztYfPuR","pdf",3081987,"English","# Main Points\n# Abstract\n## Objective\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusion\n# Introduction\n# Methods","[{\"question\":\"What is the primary objective of this study?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate bracket positioning in customized and conventional bonding methods according to Andrews’ approach to bracket placement.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the brackets positioned and deviations measured?\",\"answer\":\"Crown length was measured on digital models, the facial axis (FA) point was calculated, and bracket position was measured along the vertical axis; deviation was determined using Andrews’ method with TSD defined as \\u003e0.5 mm.\"},{\"question\":\"Which group showed a higher rate of significant deviation (TSD)?\",\"answer\":\"The modified Kalange group showed a higher TSD percentage (69.5%) than the Insignia group (56.65%), and the between-group difference was significant (p=0.003).\"},{\"question\":\"How did anterior bracket positioning compare with posterior positioning?\",\"answer\":\"In both methods, anterior brackets had a higher TSD percentage than posterior brackets, and the deviation was predominantly occlusal or incisal (Insignia 86.9%; modified Kalange 97.6%).\"}]","Evaluation of Bracket Positioning - A Customized System Versus the Conventional Method | PDF",1790607640,25]