Literature DB >> 29407508

Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights.

Jiyeon Kim1, Youn-Sic Chun1, Minji Kim2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of cusp height of posterior teeth (first premolar, second premolar, first molar) on the accuracy of the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) indirect bonding system. MATERIAL: Five kinds of maxillary arch models, without attrition, were divided into 2 groups: control group (with 0.5 mm of grinding) and experimental group (with the addition of 0.5 mm of wax to the cusp tip). Rapid prototype models were printed for both groups. Transfer jigs of the individual tooth brackets were designed using a digital model. 3-dimensional program to evaluate the differences between the intended digital bracket position and actual bracket position after indirect bonding. The differences were measured in the linear (mesiodistal, buccolingual, vertical) and angular (angulation, rotation, torque) dimensions. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for statistical analyses; significance was defined as P <0.05.
RESULTS: Both groups had similar frequencies of errors between the intended and actual bracket positions. The frequencies of vertical errors over 0.5 mm were 3.3% and 6.7% in the control and experimental groups, respectively. The frequencies of angulation, rotation, and torque errors over 1° were 53.3%, 43.3%, and 60%, respectively, for the control group; and 60%, 60%, and 73.3%, respectively, for the experimental group.
CONCLUSIONS: A difference in cusp height of maxillary posterior teeth did not produce a statistically significant difference in the linear and angular dimensions of bracket placement with the CAD/CAM indirect bonding system. However, given the tendency for a higher frequency in bracket placement errors in posterior teeth with larger cusp tips, cusp height should be considered when using a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system.
Copyright © 2017 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29407508     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  18 in total

1.  Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy.

Authors:  Zhe-Chen Zhang; Pei-Lun Li; Feng-Ting Chu; Gang Shen
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Reproducibility of digital indirect bonding technique using three-dimensional (3D) models and 3D-printed transfer trays.

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

3.  Influence of clinical experience on accuracy of virtual orthodontic attachment bonding in comparison with the direct procedure.

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

4.  Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding.

Authors:  Ye Niu; Yunting Zeng; Zeyu Zhang; Wanghan Xu; Liwei Xiao
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Effects of offset design on the accuracy of bracket placement with a guided bonding device.

Authors:  Bin Li; Peiqi Wang; Hui Xu; Rui Gu; Xianglong Han; Ding Bai; Chaoran Xue
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 2.341

Review 6.  Orthodontic bracket bonding techniques and adhesion failures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  André-Luiz-Campos Dos Santos; Letícia-Maira Wambier; Denise-Stadler Wambier; Kelly-Maria-Silva Moreira; José-Carlos-Pettorossi Imparato; Ana-Cláudia-Rodrigues Chibinski
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2022-09-01

7.  Bracket transfer accuracy with two different three-dimensional printed transfer trays vs silicone transfer trays.

Authors:  Lea Hoffmann; Hisham Sabbagh; Andera Wichelhaus; Andreas Kessler
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 2.684

8.  Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  Petra C Bachour; Robert Klabunde; Thorsten Grünheid
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 2.684

9.  Fixed lingual orthodontic retainer with bilateral missing lateral incisors produced in PEEK material using CAD/CAM technology.

Authors:  Khaled Aboulazm; Constantin von See; Ahmed Othman
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2021-06-01

10.  Accurate Bracket Placement with an Indirect Bonding Method Using Digitally Designed Transfer Models Printed in Different Orientations-An In Vitro Study.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.