Literature DB >> 29471483

Transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques-an in vitro study with 3D scanned models.

Johanna Schmid1, Daniel Brenner1, Wolfgang Recheis2, Philipp Hofer-Picout3, Martin Brenner4, Adriano G Crismani1.   

Abstract

Background and objectives: Indirect bonding (IDB) proved to be an effective method for appropriate bracket positioning in patients. Different methods and materials are available for fabricating transfer trays. This in vitro study was designed to measure and compare the transfer accuracy of two common IDB methods. Materials and methods: Sixty stone models were fabricated and separated in two groups of 30 models each (15 working models, 15 patient models). After placing brackets on the working models, 30 IDB trays were made: 15 silicone (method I) and 15 double-vacuum forms (method II). With these trays, the brackets were transferred to the patient models. The bracket positions were scanned before and after the IDB procedure with an intraoral scanner. The linear and angular discrepancies were then determined digitally by measuring six different dimensions: occluso-cervical, mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, tip, rotation, and torque.
Results: The silicone trays showed fewer transfer discrepancies, on average, in all measured dimensions. There were significant differences between the methods in the occluso-cervical (P < 0.001), mesio-distal (P = 0.001), and torque (P = 0.044) dimensions. With both methods, 100 per cent of the horizontal and transversal measurements of both methods were within the clinically acceptable range of 0.25 mm. With method I, 98.5 per cent of the vertical and 95.9 per cent of the angular measurements were within the range of 0.25 mm and 1°, respectively. With method II, 94 per cent of the vertical and 84.8 per cent of the angular measurements were within the clinically acceptable range. Conclusions: Although both transfer methods showed a high precision, silicone trays scored better in terms of accuracy than double-vacuum forms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29471483     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjy006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Mohamed S Hassan; Fatma A Abdelsayed; Amany H Abdelghany; Zac Morse; Mai H Aboulfotouh
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2022-06-15

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hisham Sabbagh; Yeganeh Khazaei; Uwe Baumert; Lea Hoffmann; Andrea Wichelhaus; Mila Janjic Rankovic
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 4.964

8.  Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding (IDB) Tray Design Versions and Their Influence on the Transfer Accuracy.

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

9.  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

10.  Comparison of the accuracy of virtual and direct bonding of orthodontic accessories.

Authors:  Natalice Sousa de Oliveira; Bruno Frazão Gribel; Leniana Santos Neves; Elizabeth Maria Bastos Lages; Soraia Macari; Henrique Pretti
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2019-09-05
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.