###### Abstract  
This study aimed to evaluate the failure rates and relevant factors of bonded orthodontic brackets with a computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-based 3D-printed indirect bonding jigs system (IDBS) using 2531 natural teeth selected from 99 orthodontic patients. Ceramic self-ligating brackets and metal tubes were used in this study. Proportion analysis was used to calculate the total bracket re-bonding rate and respective proportions of bonding failure and position error. Crossover frequency analysis was used to analyze the total bracket re-bonding, bonding failure, and position error rates in different tooth positions of the maxilla and mandible. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between dependent variables (age, sex, treatment stage, skeletal divergence, and tooth position) and the bracket bonding failure rate. [PERSON]'s Chi-square test was used to test the difference between the maxilla and mandible for each variable. The total bracket re-bonding rate was 22.64%, and the bonding failure rate and position error rates accounted for 15.09% and 7.55%, respectively. The bonding failure rate was higher in the mandibular teeth than in the maxillary teeth (\(p<0.05\)). Anterior teeth had a higher position error rate, and mandibular anterior teeth had a higher bonding failure rate. The accuracy of IDBS was higher in the premolars and molars. Sex, age, and treatment stage were affected by IDBS. Patients with hyperdivergent skeletal patterns had higher rates of bracket bonding failure. The results of this study can provide practical guidelines for placing brackets with 3D-printed IDBS on the entire dentition to ensure the precision and accuracy of their use during orthodontic treatments. d  
e 20231316682023131682023168202316682023131668  
such as malformation and defection of teeth and a limited field of vision affect the working conditions of orthodontists [5]. CAD/CAM technology assists IDBS in reducing the clinical treatment time by simplifying the bracket-bonding steps and optimizing the preprocessing process [6]. During clinical treatment, only three steps are required to complete a single bracket bonding: the tooth surface process, transfer trays/ijgs placement, and adhesive curing. [PERSON] et al. found that the chair time of brackets bonded with the CAD/CAM-assisted IDBS was reduced by 4 min for every half of the mouth compared with the DB [6]. Furthermore, IDBS can effectively control bacterial plaque accumulation, reduce the onset of white spots, and reduce inflammation by minimizing the adhesive residual and enamel etching area [6]. This study also found that plaque accumulation around the brackets in IDBS was significantly lower than that in the DB during the first 4 months, which is the most difficult time to clean after bracket bonding, and the onset of white spots was significantly reduced during orthodontic treatment [7]. Several studies have demonstrated the positive effects of IDBS [8; 9]. [PERSON] et al. described bracket transfer accuracy in a systematic review; the overall linear mean transfer errors in the mesiodistal, vertical, and buccolingual directions were 0.08 mm, 0.09 mm, and 0.14 mm, respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors for the angulation, rotation, and torque were 1.13\({}^{\circ}\), 0.93\({}^{\circ}\), and 1.11\({}^{\circ}\), respectively [8]. [PERSON] et al. showed that IDBS was in a clinically acceptable range of \(\pm\)0.05 mm and 2.0\({}^{\circ}\) for linear and angular measurements, according to the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System [9]. However, most previous studies have focused on evaluating the success rate and accuracy of IDBS in laboratory environments, that is, in vitro studies. In actual clinical practice, bracket transfer and bonding occur in the patient's mouth with exposure to saliva and different stressors. Several factors may influence the success rate and accuracy of bracket bonding.