OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double-PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n = 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. RESULTS: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n = 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n = 1; P < .05). With one exception, all significant differences were ≤0.26 mm and most (65%) were ≤0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent.
OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double-PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n = 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. RESULTS: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n = 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n = 1; P < .05). With one exception, all significant differences were ≤0.26 mm and most (65%) were ≤0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent.
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: Julia Süpple; Julius von Glasenapp; Eva Hofmann; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Petra Julia Koch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.241