American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Techno bytesAccuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights
Section snippets
Material and methods
Five maxillary plaster models were chosen; they had no evidence of attrition, lacked a distinctive cusp tip, and were characterized by mild crowding (<3 mm). The experimental plaster models also had no evidence of the following traits: tooth malformation, congenitally missing teeth, and sink depth and protrusion in the buccal surface. The chosen models were modified accordingly into the control models and the experimental models. The right and left posterior teeth (first premolars, second
Results
In the comparison of mean errors in bracket positions according to cusp height of posterior teeth, mean mesiodistal errors were 0.09 ± 0.09 mm in the control group and 0.05 ± 0.01 mm in the experimental group for first premolars, second premolars, and first molars. Buccolingual errors were measured at 0.08 ± 0.05 mm and 0.11 ± 0.07 mm, and vertical errors were 0.14 ± 0.14 mm and 0.19 ± 0.2 mm in the control and experimental groups, respectively. Mean angulation errors were 1.53° ± 1.57° and
Discussion
This experiment was planned to compare accuracy in bracket position with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system by cusp height in maxillary posterior teeth. Posterior teeth with normal attrition were set as the control groups, and those with maximum cusp height were set as the experimental groups. Intended bracket position by CAD/CAM and actual bracket position after indirect bonding were compared.
Accurate bracket positioning is an important factor in treatment with straight wire appliances, and it
Conclusions
Mean errors in the control and experimental groups were not significantly different in the statistics. Error frequencies over the clinical limit in the experimental group were higher in general than those in the control group. Frequencies over 0.5 mm in vertical errors were 6.7% in the experimental group, although those of mesiodistal and buccolingual errors in both groups were not shown. Error frequencies of angulation, rotation, and torque over 1° in the experimental group were higher than in
References (22)
- et al.
A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets
Am J Orthod
(1972) - et al.
The OrthoCAD bracket placement solution
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2004) - et al.
Effect of variation in tooth morphology and bracket position on first and third order correction with preadjusted appliances
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1999) - et al.
Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis
J Prosthet Dent
(2014) - et al.
Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1998) - et al.
Choosing the esthetic angle of the face: experiments with laypersons and prosthodontists
J Prosthet Dent
(2011) Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the advantages
World J Orthod
(2004)- et al.
Indirect bonding: a literature review [abstract]
Eur J Gen Dent
(2012) - et al.
Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques
Angle Orthod
(2014) Computer-aided bracket placement for indirect bonding
Clin Orthod
(2005)
Computer-aided interactive indirect bonding
Prog Orthod
Cited by (49)
Lingual bracket transfer accuracy of double vacuum-formed indirect bonding tray using 3D-printed model: an in vivo study
2024, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsAccuracy of 3-dimensional–printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in digital indirect bonding: An in vivo study
2023, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsComparison of bracket bonding between two CAD/CAM guided bonding devices: GBD-U vs GBD-B
2023, Journal of DentistryAn evaluation of the accuracy of bracket positioning with and without loupes using 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software
2023, Journal of Taibah University Medical SciencesCitation Excerpt :These are less time consuming and more accurate but require elaborate laboratory work.11,12 The emergence of digital technology in indirect bonding techniques has made the fabrication of the transfer tray efficient and accurate.13–15 Various studies have been conducted to evaluate the ideal bracket positioning and found that even if the brackets were ideally placed, vertical errors can occur, thus requiring improvisation in bracket positioning techniques.16,17
Accuracy of indirect bracket placement with medium-soft, transparent, broad-coverage transfer trays fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing: An in-vivo study
2023, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :In contrast, Armstrong et al35 stated that linear deviations exceeding 0.25 mm for incisors and 0.5 mm for posterior sectors should be clinically significant. Unlike other studies,23,26,27 we decided to set the threshold of clinical acceptability to 0.25 mm and 1° to take into account the possibility that the same positional error could be repeated in the opposite direction on 2 contiguous teeth, thereby magnifying the error, as observed by Schmid et al.29 In another departure from the existing literature, in this study, we used a bonding accuracy measurement method on the basis of an automated calculation procedure that involved digital matching between postbonding in-vivo scans and the reference CAD model. Rather than superimposing the arch as a whole, we digitally matched individual teeth, as Anh et al31 demonstrated the presence of minimal distortions in the arch during digital image capture.
Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed bracket transfer tray using an in-office indirect bonding system
2022, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :When measuring the displacement of the planned bracket position and the actual bracket position, the 4 corners of a rectangular object can be the exact reference point of the 3D coordinate system, allowing clear distance and angle measurements. The previous study observed torque errors of 1.99-3.36°,18,19 whereas we found a torque error of 3.13-2.69° in our study, which was consistent with the previous study results, and there was no significant difference between the 3 groups. The comparison of the errors among the 3 groups revealed that values of the height and distance errors were significantly lower in the STP group.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.