OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the accuracy of bracket placement produced by OrthoCAD iQ indirect bonding (IDB) and that of an in-house fabricated IDB system by measuring the quality of intra-arch dental alignment at the end of simulated orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight artificial teeth were arranged to resemble a typical preorthodontic malocclusion. Forty-six sets of models were duplicated from the original malocclusion and randomly divided into two sample groups. Half of the models had their bracket positions selected by OrthoCAD, while the others were completed by a combination of faculty and residents in a university orthodontic department. Indirect bonding trays were fabricated for each sample and the brackets were transferred back to the original malocclusion following typical bonding protocol. The individual teeth were ligated on a .021 × .025-inch stainless steel archwire to simulate their posttreatment positions. The two sample groups were compared using the objective grading system (OGS) originally designed by the American Board of Orthodontics. RESULTS: The mean total OGS score for the OrthoCAD sample group was 39.25 points, while the traditional IDB technique scored 41.00 points. No statistical difference was found between total scores or any of the four components evaluated. Similar ranges of scores were observed, with the OrthoCAD group scoring from 30 to 52 points and the traditional IDB group scoring from 33 to 53 points. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is not accepted. OrthoCAD iQ does not currently offer a system that can position orthodontic brackets better or more reliably than traditional indirect bonding techniques.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the accuracy of bracket placement produced by OrthoCAD iQ indirect bonding (IDB) and that of an in-house fabricated IDB system by measuring the quality of intra-arch dental alignment at the end of simulated orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight artificial teeth were arranged to resemble a typical preorthodontic malocclusion. Forty-six sets of models were duplicated from the original malocclusion and randomly divided into two sample groups. Half of the models had their bracket positions selected by OrthoCAD, while the others were completed by a combination of faculty and residents in a university orthodontic department. Indirect bonding trays were fabricated for each sample and the brackets were transferred back to the original malocclusion following typical bonding protocol. The individual teeth were ligated on a .021 × .025-inch stainless steel archwire to simulate their posttreatment positions. The two sample groups were compared using the objective grading system (OGS) originally designed by the American Board of Orthodontics. RESULTS: The mean total OGS score for the OrthoCAD sample group was 39.25 points, while the traditional IDB technique scored 41.00 points. No statistical difference was found between total scores or any of the four components evaluated. Similar ranges of scores were observed, with the OrthoCAD group scoring from 30 to 52 points and the traditional IDB group scoring from 33 to 53 points. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is not accepted. OrthoCAD iQ does not currently offer a system that can position orthodontic brackets better or more reliably than traditional indirect bonding techniques.
Authors: Maria Eduarda Assad Duarte; Bruno Frazão Gribel; Alice Spitz; Flavia Artese; José Augusto Mendes Miguel Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Natalice S De Oliveira; Emile Rossouw; Elizabeth M B Lages; Soraia Macari; Henrique Pretti Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Julius von Glasenapp; Eva Hofmann; Julia Süpple; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Petra Julia Koch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 4.241