INTRODUCTION: Current studies have compared indirect bonding with direct placement of orthodontic brackets; many of these have shown that indirect bonding is generally a more accurate technique. However, the reproducibility of an indirect bonding setup by an orthodontist has yet to be described in the literature. Using cone-beam computed tomography and computer-assisted modeling software, we evaluated the consistency of orthodontists in placing orthodontic brackets at different times. METHODS: Five orthodontists with experience in indirect bonding were selected to place brackets on 10 different casts at 3 time periods (n = 30 per orthodontist). Each participant completed an initial indirect bonding setup on each cast; subsequent bracket placements were completed twice at monthly intervals for comparison with the initial setup. The casts were scanned using an iCAT cone-beam computed tomography scanner (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, Pa) and imported into Geomagic Studio software (Geomagic, Research Triangle Park, NC) for superimposition and analysis. The scans for each time period were superimposed on the initial setup in the imaging software, and differences between bracket positions were calculated. For each superimposition, the measurements recorded were the greatest discrepancies between individual brackets as well as the mean discrepancies and standard deviations between all brackets on each cast. RESULTS: Single-factor and repeated-measure analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences between time points of each orthodontist, or among the orthodontists for the parameters measured. The mean discrepancy was 0.1 mm for each 10-bracket indirect bonding setup. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists are consistent in selecting bracket positions for an indirect bonding setup at various time periods.
INTRODUCTION: Current studies have compared indirect bonding with direct placement of orthodontic brackets; many of these have shown that indirect bonding is generally a more accurate technique. However, the reproducibility of an indirect bonding setup by an orthodontist has yet to be described in the literature. Using cone-beam computed tomography and computer-assisted modeling software, we evaluated the consistency of orthodontists in placing orthodontic brackets at different times. METHODS: Five orthodontists with experience in indirect bonding were selected to place brackets on 10 different casts at 3 time periods (n = 30 per orthodontist). Each participant completed an initial indirect bonding setup on each cast; subsequent bracket placements were completed twice at monthly intervals for comparison with the initial setup. The casts were scanned using an iCAT cone-beam computed tomography scanner (Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, Pa) and imported into Geomagic Studio software (Geomagic, Research Triangle Park, NC) for superimposition and analysis. The scans for each time period were superimposed on the initial setup in the imaging software, and differences between bracket positions were calculated. For each superimposition, the measurements recorded were the greatest discrepancies between individual brackets as well as the mean discrepancies and standard deviations between all brackets on each cast. RESULTS: Single-factor and repeated-measure analysis of variance showed no statistically significant differences between time points of each orthodontist, or among the orthodontists for the parameters measured. The mean discrepancy was 0.1 mm for each 10-bracket indirect bonding setup. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontists are consistent in selecting bracket positions for an indirect bonding setup at various time periods.
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