Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques

Enamel Deproteinization or Sandblasting for Enamel Reconditioning Before Acid Etching to Enhance the Shear Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets in a Third Bonding: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Enamel conditioning with 37% phosphoric acid is the most common technique during orthodontic bracket bonding procedures. However, due to the repeated de-bonding of the orthodontic brackets during treatment, other methods were needed to condition the enamel surface and increase the bond strength. This study aimed to compare the effect of conditioning the enamel surface by sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles or 5.25% sodium hypochlorite gel in combination with acid etching compared to acid etching alone on shear bond strength (SBS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred eight extracted upper premolars were randomly divided into three groups according to the conditioning enamel surface method. After the first and second bonding of metal brackets, new metal brackets were bonded with a total-etching adhesive after enamel conditioning using different methods: acid etching only (37% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds) (AE group), sodium hypochlorite associated with acid etching (5.25% NaOCl gel for 60 seconds and then acid etching for 30 seconds) (NaOCl-AE group), and sandblasting associated with acid etching (sandblasting for five seconds and then acid etching for 30 seconds) (SB-AE group). The shear bond strengths of the brackets were tested with a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) tests were used to detect significant differences in shear bond strength among groups at the third bonding. Repeated-measure ANOVA and Bonferroni's tests were used to detect significant differences in shear bond strength among the bonding attempts within each group.

RESULTS

5.25% sodium hypochlorite associated with the acid etching method produced significantly greater shear bond strength than sandblasting associated with acid etching and acid etching only methods at the third bonding (16.40 ± 5.80 MPa, 13.60.47 ± 6.40 MPa, and 9.90 ± 4.40 MPa, respectively; P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the AE and SB-AE groups (P = 0.247). In addition, we found a significant decrease in the shear bond strength within each group after each bonding attempt.

CONCLUSION

Conditioning the enamel surface with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite associated with acid etching produced greater bond strength than conditioning by sandblasting associated with acid etching and acid etching only at the third bonding. The bond strength of the metal bracket decreased with increasing bonding attempts, even with the application of enamel surface conditioning methods.

Does curve of Spee affect the precision of 3D-printed curvature-adaptive splints?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to propose a standardized protocol for the fabrication of three-dimensionally (3D)-printed curvature-adaptive splints (CASs) and assess the precision of CASs on dentitions with different depths of the curve of Spee (COS).

METHODS

76 lower dental resin models, each exhibiting one of the four types of COS (0-, 2-, 4-, and 6-mm deep), were selected and digitally scanned. CASs were designed, 3D printed, and grouped into C0, C2, C4, and C6, corresponding to the four types of COS depths. To assess precision, the CASs occluded with the resin model were scanned as a whole and compared with the originally designed ones.

RESULTS

In terms of translational deviations observed in the CASs, the mean value of absolute sagittal deviation (0.136 mm) was significantly higher than those of vertical (0.091 mm) and transversal deviations (0.045 mm) (P < 0.01). Regarding rotational deviations of the CASs, the mean deviation in pitch (0.323°) was significantly higher than those in yaw (0.083°) and roll (0.110°) (P < 0.01). However, when comparing the accuracy of CASs across C0, C2, C4, and C6 groups, no statistically significant difference was found. Additionally, the translational deviations, rotational deviations, and RMSE of all groups were significantly lower than the clinically acceptable limits of 0.5 mm, 1°, and 0.25 mm, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The depth of the COS has no significant impact on the precision of CASs, as evidenced by the absence of statistically significant differences in translational, rotational deviations, and RMSE among all groups (C0, C2, C4, and C6). Moreover, despite relatively high deviations in the sagittal dimension and pitch, all dimensional deviations and RMSE remained statistically significantly lower than the corresponding clinically acceptable limits (CALs) in all groups.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This standardized protocol incorporating "curvature-adaptation" represents an optimized approach to fabricating diverse 3D-printed splints tailored to dentitions with different anatomical features in contemporary digital dentistry.

Comparison of the accuracy of two techniques for three-dimensional digital indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to clinically compare the accuracy of bracket positioning between three-dimensionally (3D) printed indirect bonding trays and vacuum-formed trays made over 3D-printed models.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fourteen patients, planned for fixed orthodontic therapy, were randomly divided into two equal groups. For both groups, both dental arches were scanned, to acquire virtual models, brackets were virtually positioned from central incisors to second premolars, and scans for the final bracket positions were performed. In the first group, transfer trays were 3D-printed. In the second group, virtual models were 3D-printed, and vacuum-formed soft sheets were thermoformed on the printed model. Teeth were indirectly bonded and then scanned. Superimposition of the virtual and the final bracket positioning scans was performed to measure linear and angular deviations in brackets positions.

RESULTS

The first group showed significantly less occlusogingival and buccolingual linear errors than the second group. No significant differences in angular deviations were found between both groups. The frequencies of clinically acceptable linear errors within 0.5 mm and angular errors within 2° showed no statistically significant difference between both groups (p> 0.05 for all measurements). The transfer errors in both groups showed linear directional biases toward the mesial, gingival and labial directions. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of immediate debonding between both groups (10.7% and 7.1% for the first and the second groups, respectively, p=0.295).

CONCLUSIONS

3D-printed indirect bonding trays were more accurate than vacuum-formed trays, in terms of linear deviations. Both types of trays showed similar angular control.

Lingual bracket transfer accuracy of double vacuum-formed indirect bonding tray using 3D-printed model: an in vivo study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the transfer accuracy of a digital indirect bonding method for lingual brackets using double vacuum-formed trays in vivo.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients in need of lingual orthodontic treatment were consecutively recruited. Bracket placement was performed on ideal setups, followed by fabricating indirect bonding trays through vacuum-forming on 3-dimensional printed models. Transfer accuracy was measured at each bracket after superimpositions of postbonding scans and reference data. One-tailed t tests were used to determine whether bracket deviations were within the limit of 0.5 mm and 2° for linear and angular dimensions, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 611 lingual brackets were evaluated. Mean linear transfer errors were 0.06 mm, 0.09 mm, and 0.12 mm, with frequencies of deviations within the 0.5 mm limit of 99.7%, 99.8%, and 98.0% for mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions, respectively. Regarding angular measurements, mean transfer errors were 1.28°, 1.73°, and 2.96°, with frequencies of deviations within the 2° limit of 81.0%, 68.9%, and 51.1% for rotation, tip, and torque, respectively. Mean errors fell within the clinically accepted limits for all linear dimensions and rotation but exceeded the limit for tip and torque.

CONCLUSIONS

Lingual bracket indirect bonding using double vacuum-formed trays fabricated on 3-dimensional printed models has high transfer accuracy in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions and rotation. However, the transfer of tip and torque is less accurate.

Influence of the design of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays and experience of the clinician on the accuracy of bracket placement

PURPOSE

The aim was to investigate the influence of three different three-dimensional (3D)-printed bonding tray designs and professional experience on accuracy of indirect bracket placement.

METHODS

Virtual bracket placement was performed on a scanned dental model using OnyxCeph software (Image Instruments, Chemnitz, Germany). Three different designs for indirect bonding trays (open, semi-open, and closed design) were created and produced using a 3D printer. To analyze the influence of professional experience, one of the three tray designs was produced twice. In this case, bracket placement was performed by an inexperienced dentist. Bracket positions were scanned after the indirect bonding procedure. Linear and angular transfer errors were measured. Significant differences between the target and actual situation were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 test.

RESULTS

All bonding tray designs resulted in comparable results. The results of the unexperienced dentist showed significantly higher deviations than those for the experienced orthodontist in the torque direction. However, the mean values were comparable. The open tray design exceeded the clinically acceptable limits of 0.25 mm and 1° more often. The inexperienced dentist exceeded these limits significantly more often than the experienced orthodontist in the vertical and torque direction. The immediate bracket loss rate showed no significant differences between the different tray designs. Significantly more bracket losses were observed for the inexperienced dentist during the procedure compared to the experienced orthodontist.

CONCLUSIONS

The bonding tray design and professional experience had an influence on the exceedance of clinically relevant limits of positioning accuracy and on the bracket loss rate.

Deep learning for virtual orthodontic bracket removal: tool establishment and application

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a tool for virtual orthodontic bracket removal based on deep learning algorithms for feature extraction from bonded teeth and to demonstrate its application in a bracket position assessment scenario.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our segmentation network for virtual bracket removal was trained using dataset A, containing 978 bonded teeth, 20 original teeth, and 20 brackets generated by scanners. The accuracy and segmentation time of the network were tested by dataset B, which included an additional 118 bonded teeth without knowing the original tooth morphology. This tool was then applied for bracket position assessment. The clinical crown center, bracket center, and orientations of separated teeth and brackets were extracted for analyzing the linear distribution and angular deviation of bonded brackets.

RESULTS

This tool performed virtual bracket removal in 2.9 ms per tooth with accuracies of 98.93% and 97.42% (P < 0.01) in datasets A and B, respectively. The tooth surface and bracket characteristics were extracted and used to evaluate the results of manually bonded brackets by 49 orthodontists. Personal preferences for bracket angulation and bracket distribution were displayed graphically and tabularly.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool's efficiency and precision are satisfactory, and it can be operated without original tooth data. It can be used to display the bonding deviation in the bracket position assessment scenario.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

With the aid of this tool, unnecessary bracket removal can be avoided when evaluating bracket positions and modifying treatment plans. It has the potential to produce retainers and orthodontic devices prior to tooth debonding.

Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of fixed orthodontic treatment comparing standard and computer-aided design and manufacturing conventional bracket systems using indirect bonding for both: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

To compare the effectiveness and efficiency of orthodontic treatment (OT) with standard versus computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) indirect bonding of conventional brackets.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined two groups: standard indirect bonding group (12 males, 13 females; mean age 12.21 ± 0.52 years), and digital indirect bonding group (11 males, 14 females; mean age 12.76 ± 1.32 years), treated via a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system. Conventional brackets were used in both groups. Pretreatment and post-treatment records were acquired for all subjects. Weighted Peer Assessment Rating (W-PAR) index was used to assess the effectiveness of OT, in conjunction with five angular cephalometric measurements (ANB°, Sn-GoGn°, U1-PP°, IMPA° and FMA°) and comparatively analyzed using generalized mixed-effects models and post hoc test. Treatment efficiency was assessed in terms of the numbers of bracket repositionings, archwire bends, accidental bracket debondings, appointments and treatment months. Comparative analysis of efficiency was performed using the asymptotic Wilcoxon-Mann-Witney test. Statistical significance was set at 5%.

RESULTS

Total W-PAR and W-PAR component scores decreased significantly during treatment for both groups and in a similar way. Cephalometric measures ANB° and IMPA° significantly decreased and increased, respectively. Significantly fewer bracket repositionings, number of appointments and treatment months were recorded in group digital indirect bonding.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both methods investigated were effective to achieve good outcomes, CAD/CAM indirect bonding method increased the efficiency of OT, when conventional brackets are used.

CAD/CAM indirect bonding trays using hard versus soft resin material: a single-blinded in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The present in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed indirect bonding trays consisting of hard or soft resin materials produced using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM).

METHODS

Forty-eight dental casts were 3D printed. Four groups based on frontal crowding were defined and divided into hard- and soft-resin groups. After virtual bracket positioning on the digital models, the transfer trays were 3D printed. To evaluate the accuracy of the procedure, measurements were performed using a digital overlay of the virtual (target) bracket position and a post-bonding scan. The horizontal, transverse, and vertical deviations and angular discrepancies were analyzed. The loss rate was evaluated descriptively as a percentage.

RESULTS

A total of 553 brackets were bonded using 24 soft and 24 resilient indirect bonding trays. The mean deviations were of 0.05 mm (transversal), 0.05 mm (horizontal), 0.09 mm (vertical), 0.13° (angulation) in the resilient resin group and of 0.01 mm (transversal), 0.08 mm (horizontal), 0.08 mm (vertical), 0.37° (angular) in the soft resin group. The loss rate was 6.9% and 0.7% in the hard and soft resin groups, respectively. Angular deviations were significantly higher in the soft resin group (P = 0.009), whereas the loss rate was considerably higher in the hard resin group (P < 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE

The findings indicate that indirect bonding using CAD/CAM is an accurate procedure in the laboratory setting. Soft resins are considered favorable for loss rate and useability.

Three Dimensional Evaluation of Accuracy of Bracket Positioning

Introduction

The success of orthodontic treatment depends on accurate bracket placement, so researchers are constantly exploring new direct and indirect bonding methods with the help of cutting-edge imaging technologies like cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), which provides full three-dimensional visualization of tissues down to the root of the tooth.

Aim

The primary goals of this analysis are to determine the degree of section angulation and adhesive thickness, as well as the accuracy of the vertical and flat section positions. The correlation between total clinical crown height, minor edge to focus of section, and minimum edge to complete curve crown length is one of several possible goals of this investigation (FACC).

Materials and Methods

Currently, 10 patients aged 15-30 who needed fixed appliance treatment were enrolled in an in vivo research conducted by the orthodontics department. Cases with and without extractions of the crooked teeth were counted. Full mouth analysis is being used in this investigation. Ten patients were selected at random and placed in either Group A (the study group) or Group B (the control group) (control group). Group A bonds are more indirect, whereas group B bonds are more like "normal" direct bonds. We used a Canon 700D camera, a biocompatible transparent 3D printing resin, and a 3M Gemini MBT.022 in bracket kit for CT scanning and imaging. Brackets are placed by experienced orthodontists in both treatment groups.

Result

There is a statistically significant (P 0.05) difference between the indirect and direct bonding group when all five factors are taken into account, with the indirect bonding group demonstrating superiority in terms of accuracy.

Conclusion

The results of the current investigation support the premise that there is a clinically significant difference between direct bonding and 3D indirect bonding in terms of bracket placement accuracy.

Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

Orthodontic Retainers-A Critical Review

The achievement of aesthetic, functional occlusion should not mark the end of the orthodontic intervention. To prevent relapse, retention needs advance planning, and may vary in duration. This review aims to present and comment on the available means of retention. The ever-popular, passive Hawley-like removable appliances are credible in maintaining the desired occlusion. Modifications are the removable appliance Wrap Around, having the labial archwire extending to the premolars; the translucent retainer, Astics, a unique aesthetic Hawley-type device; and the reinforced removable retainer, which features a metallic grid reinforcing the acrylic base. Vacuum-formed retainers are easy to fabricate and are readily prescribed. By contrast, fixed retainers are made of orthodontic wire and composite resin bonded on the lingual or palatal surfaces of the anterior teeth. Patient-related variables need evaluation to select the appropriate retainer, while patients ought to realize the importance of retention and comply with offered guidance. Overall, the orthodontist is responsible for keeping the patient informed on the properties and the duration of retention, even before starting active orthodontic treatment.

Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study

Background/objectives

When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy.

Methods

A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated.

Results

Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09).

Conclusion/implications

There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets.

Accuracy of Orthodontic Indirect Bracket Bonding by CAD/CAM Transfer Tray

Introduction: Indirect bonding is a technique in which orthodontic attachments are transferred from dental casts (working models) and bonded onto dentition using a transfer tray. Indirect bonding is a preferred technique for many orthodontists as it is less time consuming compared to direct bonding. Evolution in technology allowed forming transfer trays digitally by the integration of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). This study was conducted to measure transfer accuracy of CAD/CAM indirect three dimensional printed bonding trays. Materials and methods: 140 teeth (all upper and lower incisors, canines and premolars) in 7 patients were bonded by vacuum-formed transfer tray formed on 3 dimensional (3D) printed models with resin brackets. Intra oral scanner was used initially to obtain stereolithographic file for virtual brackets positioning and another scan was taken after brackets bonding.   Superimposition of virtual STL files and post bonding STL files was done by Geomagic Qualify software to measure linear and angular deviation of brackets positions. Results: One sample t-test was performed to determine whether the mean transfer error was statistically within the selected acceptable limits of 0.5 mm for linear measurements. P-values of less than 0.05 indicated differences within the limits of 0.5 mm for linear measurements. All brackets were transferred within the accepted deviation limits Conclusions: CAD/CAM designed and printed transfer trays had high transfer accuracy in linear measurements in all teeth.

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

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the chairside time, bond failure rate, and accuracy of bonding between two orthodontic attachment indirect bonding techniques.

Methods and Materials

Two indirect bonding techniques were studied: unaltered base attachment (UA) and custom base attachment (CBA) methods. Eighty-four orthodontic attachments were bonded on six patient stone models. Preoperative models were digitally scanned, and subsequently, attachments were transferred with the aid of a single but sectioned vacuum-formed tray to their corresponding patients. Finally, participants were scanned after attachment bonding to make the postoperative digital replicas. Chairside time and immediate bond failure rates were measured and compared between both techniques. Postoperative and preoperative digital models were then superimposed in order to measure the accuracy of bonding in the three dimensions of space.

Results

No differences existed between the two techniques regarding chairside time (P=0.87) and bond failure rates (P=0.37). There were also no differences found for the total attachment movement (P=0.73), mesiodistal (P=0.10), occlusogingival (P=0.31), torquing (P=0.21), and rotational measurements (P=0.18). The UA technique, however, proved to be more accurate for buccopalatal linear directions (P=0.04), whilst the CBA technique showed more accuracy for tipping angular deviations (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant directional bias for the UA towards the occlusal (P < 0.01) and palatal (P=0.02) directions with mesial-out angular deviation (P=0.02).

Conclusion

The two indirect bonding techniques were comparable for chairside time, bond failure rates, and most linear and angular measurements. The UA technique was, however, superior in buccopalatal directions, while the CBA method showed more tipping accuracy. Both techniques were efficient and reliable for indirect bonding.

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

Purpose: To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). Methods: Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021. Selection Criteria: In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method. Results: A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences. Conclusions and implications: The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.

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

Objective: This study aims to investigate the transfer accuracy of two different design versions for 3D-printed indirect bonding (IDB) trays. Materials and Methods: Digital plaster models of 27 patients virtually received vestibular attachments on every tooth using OnyxCeph³™ (Image Instruments, Chemnitz, Germany). Based on these simulated bracket and tube positions, two versions of transfer trays were designed for each dental arch and patient, which differed in the mechanism of bracket retention: Variant one (V1) had arm-like structures protruding from the tray base and reaching into the horizontal and vertical bracket slots, and variant two (V2) had a pocket-shaped design enclosing the brackets from three sides. Both tray designs were 3D-printed with the same digital light processing (DLP) printer using a flexible resin-based material (IMPRIMO® LC IBT/Asiga MAX™, SCHEU-DENTAL, Iserlohn, Germany). Brackets and tubes (discovery® smart/pearl, Ortho-Cast M-Series, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) were inserted into the respective retention mechanism of the trays and IDB was performed on corresponding plaster models. An intraoral scan (TRIOS® 3W, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was performed to capture the actual attachment positions and compared to the virtually planned positions with Geomagic© Control (3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA) using a scripted calculation tool, which superimposed the respective tooth surfaces. The resulting attachment deviations were determined in three linear (mesiodistal, vertical and orovestibular) and three angular (torque, rotation and tip) directions and analyzed with a descriptive statistical analysis. A comparison between the two IDB tray designs was conducted using a mixed model analysis (IBM, SPSS® Statistics 27, Armonk, NY, USA). Results: Both design versions of the 3D-printed IDB trays did not differ significantly in their transfer accuracy (p > 0.05). In total, 98% (V1) and 98.5% (V2) of the linear deviations were within the clinically acceptable range of ±0.2 mm. For the angular deviations, 84.9% (V1) and 86.8% (V2) were within the range of ±1°. With V1, most deviations occurred in the mesiodistal direction (3.3%) and in rotation (18%). With V2, most deviations occurred in the vertical direction (3.8%) and in palatinal and lingual crown torque (16.3%). Conclusions: The transfer accuracies of the investigated design versions for 3D-printed IDB trays show good and comparable results albeit their different retention mechanisms for the attachments and are, therefore, both suitable for clinical practice.

Clinical effects with customized brackets and CAD/CAM technology: a prospective controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Nowadays, CAD/CAM technologies enrich orthodontics in several ways. While they are commonly used for diagnoses and treatment planning, they can also be applied to create individualized bracket systems. The purpose of this prospective quasi-randomized study was to evaluate the clinical efficiency of a customized bracket system and its comparison with directly bonded conventional self-ligating bracket treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether 38 patients were separated into two groups, treated either with direct bonded self-ligating brackets (Damon, Ormco, USA) or with indirect bonded customized CAD/CAM brackets (Insignia™, Ormco, USA). Overall treatment time, number of treatment appointments, number of lost or repositioned brackets, number of arch wires and wire bends, Little Irregularity Index, cephalometric analyses and ABO scores were compared. Superimpositions of the virtual set-ups and the treatment results of the CAD/CAM group were performed to evaluate the clinical realization of the treatment planning.

RESULTS

No differences between both treatment groups were found concerning overall treatment time, number of appointments and number of archwire bends. Bonding failures occurred more often using the CAD/CAM system. Indirectly bonded brackets did not have to be repositioned as often as directly bonded brackets. Treatment results with both systems were similar concerning their effects on the reduction of ABO scores. The number of used archwires was higher in the CAD/CAM group. Treatment with both systems led to further proclination of the incisors. Proclination in the lower jaw was greater than proclination in the upper jaw, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two treatment systems. Comparing the treatment results with the virtual set-ups, mesial positions were met best, followed by vertical positions. Transversal positions showed the greatest discrepancies. Concerning angles, values of angulation showed greatest accordance to the virtual set-up, while values of inclinations showed greatest discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with a direct bonded self-ligating bracket system the use of indirect bonded customized CAD/CAM brackets showed only minor influence on treatment efficiency and treatment outcomes. Transversal expansion, deep bite correction, expression of torque and anchorage loss remain challenges in the treatment with straight-wire appliances. Trial registration DRKS, DRKS00024350. Registered 15 February 2021, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00024350 .

Three-dimensional evaluation of the transfer accuracy of a bracket jig fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing to the anterior dentition: An in vitro study

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of a one-piece bracket jig system fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) by employing three-dimensional (3D) digital superimposition.

Methods

This in vitro study included 226 anterior teeth selected from 20 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Bracket position errors from each of the 40 arches were analyzed quantitatively via 3D digital superimposition (best-fit algorithm) of the virtual bracket and actual bracket after indirect bonding, after accounting for possible variables that may affect accuracy, such as crowding and presence of the resin base.

Results

The device could transfer the bracket accurately to the desired position of the patient’s dentition within a clinically acceptable range of ± 0.05 mm and 2.0° for linear and angular measurements, respectively. The average linear measurements ranged from 0.029 to 0.101 mm. Among the angular measurements, rotation values showed the least deviation and ranged from 0.396° to 0.623°. Directional bias was pronounced in the vertical direction, and many brackets were bonded toward the occlusal surface. However, no statistical difference was found for the three angular measurement values (torque, angulation, and rotation) in any of the groups classified according to crowding. When the teeth were moderately crowded, the mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, and rotation measurement values were affected by the presence of the resin base.

Conclusions

The characteristics of the CAD/CAM one-piece jig system were demonstrated according to the influencing factors, and the transfer accuracy was verified to be within a clinically acceptable level for the indirect bracket bonding of anterior teeth.

Residual Adhesive Removal Methods for Rebonding of Debonded Orthodontic Metal Brackets: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Debonding of orthodontic brackets is a common occurrence during orthodontic treatment. Therefore, the best option for treating debonded brackets should be indicated. This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of rebonded brackets after different residual adhesive removal methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BVS databases were screened up to December 2020. Bond strength comparisons were made considering the method used for removing the residual adhesive on the bracket base. A total of 12 studies were included for the meta-analysis. Four different adhesive removal methods were identified: sandblasting, laser, mechanical grinding, and direct flame. When compared with new orthodontic metallic brackets, bond strength of debonded brackets after air abrasion (p = 0.006), mechanical grinding (p = 0.007), and direct flame (p < 0.001) was significantly lower. The use of an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser showed similar shear bond strength (SBS) values when compared with those of new orthodontic brackets (p = 0.71). The Er:YAG laser could be considered an optimal method for promoting the bond of debonded orthodontic brackets. Direct flame, mechanical grinding, or sandblasting are also suitable, obtaining clinically acceptable bond strength values.

Effect of Direct versus Indirect Bonding Technique on the Failure Rate of Mandibular Fixed Retainer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Fixed retainer failure is a common cause of relapse and may require additional orthodontic treatment. The two main methods for bonding the mandibular fixed retainer include direct and indirect techniques. This topic has not been explored previously in a systematic review. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of direct versus indirect bonding technique on the failure rate of mandibular fixed retainer.

METHODS

Online databases (PubMed, Dental and Oral Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus) were systematically searched electronically for articles up until April 2021. Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov databases were utilized for hand searching. Randomized, non-randomized clinical trials and cohort studies on human subjects were considered regardless of language or year of publication. Orthodontic patients in their retention phase (mandibular 3×3 fixed retainer), in which the retainer was bonded using direct bonding technique as control and indirect as intervention were included. The outcome assessed was retainer failure rate. Two authors independently examined and extracted the data from the studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias in clinical trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, whereas risk of bias in cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan software V.5.3.5.22. The outcome was estimated using weighted average difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The studies' heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's heterogeneity test (I2 Test).

RESULTS

Four articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Retainer failure rates were analysed in a total number of 266 patients bonded with mandibular 3×3 retainers after orthodontic therapy. Direct bonding technique of fixed retainer on 131 patients was compared with indirect technique on 135 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of retainer failure between the two methods (95% CI, 0.67, 1.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of insufficient evidence this systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there is no difference in the failure rate of mandibular fixed retainers between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Due to the scarcity of available data, further studies are needed to establish definitively one's clinical benefit over the other.

Three-Dimensional Digital Superimposition of Orthodontic Bracket Position by Using a Computer-Aided Transfer Jig System: An Accuracy Analysis

Accurate bracket placement is essential for successful orthodontic treatment. An indirect bracket bonding system (IDBS) has been developed to ensure proper bracket positioning with three-dimensional computer-aided transfer jigs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of bracket positioning by a one-body transfer jig according to the tooth type and presence/absence of a resin base. In total, 506 teeth from 20 orthodontic patients were included in this study. After initial dental models were scanned, virtual setup and bracket positioning procedures were performed with 3D software. Transfer jigs and RP models were fabricated with a 3D printer, and brackets were bonded to the RP model with or without resin base fabrication. The best-fit method of 3D digital superimposition was used to evaluate the lineal and angular accuracy of the actual bracket position compared to a virtual bracket position. Although all the measurements showed significant differences in position, they were clinically acceptable. Regarding the tooth types, premolars and molars showed higher accuracy than anterior teeth. The presence or absence of a resin base did not consistently affect the accuracy. In conclusion, the proper application of IDBS should be performed considering the errors, and resin base fabrication might not be essential in ensuring high-accuracy IDBS.

Transfer accuracy of four different lingual retainer transfer methods using digital orthodontic models: An in vivo comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the transfer accuracy of four different lingual retainer (LR) transfer methods using three-dimensional digital models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four groups of 17 patients each were created: finger transfer (FT), silicone key transfer (SKT), acrylic resin transfer (ART), and indirect bonding (IDB). At the end of orthodontic treatment, the mandibular dental casts of patients were scanned with the LR wire. Then, intraoral scanning of the mandibular arches was performed after bonding the retainer wires. Linear and angular measurements were made using software on superimposed digital models.

RESULTS

Horizontal and vertical errors among the teeth were not significantly different among the FT, SKT, and ART groups. However, in the IDB group, linear transfer errors showed significant differences among the different teeth. The tip and rotation errors in the FT group were not significantly different among the teeth. The angular errors were lower in canines than in the incisors. In all measured parameters, the SKT group showed the lowest errors, whereas the FT group had the highest transfer errors in all parameters except vertical.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the transfer methods tested, SKT was determined to have the highest clinical accuracy.

Measurement and Comparison of Bracket Transfer Accuracy With Different Indirect Bonding Techniques: An In Vitro Study

Objective:

To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of 3 indirect bonding (IDB) techniques.

Material and Methods:

Three IDB techniques were studied using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) putty, vacuum-form (VF), and glue gun (GG). A total of 120 orthodontic stone models were fabricated with die stone, out of which bonding was done on 60 working models and transferred to other 60 patient models. One quadrant was selected for each technique. Digital photography was used to measure the mesiodistal ( X-axis), occlusogingival ( Y-axis), and faciolingual ( Z-axis) position of each bracket on the working and patient models.

Results:

All the 3 IDB techniques have a very good bracket transfer accuracy. On comparing individual planes, greatest accuracy was seen in GG on X-axis, VF on Y-axis, and VF/PVS on Z-axis. Points A and B were compared for bracket rotation and the mean differences were insignificant indicating that there was no significant amount of rotation in 3 IDB techniques.

Conclusions:

We can say that all 3 IDB techniques had a very high bracket transfer accuracy. Out of the 3 IDB techniques VF was the most accurate, whereas PVS was the least accurate technique. The selection of technique should be based on tray cost and fabrication time.

Evaluation of the effects of two different indirect bonding methods on strength of the brackets in mandibular model of severe anterior crowding

An indirect bonding method was developed to solve the problems likely to be encountered during proper positioning of the brackets. The aim of this study is to compare two different indirect bonding methods on the bond strength of the brackets. A 160 extracted human lower incisors were assigned into two groups. Transparent silicone material and bioplast material were used in transfer tray preparation in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Transbond XT adhesive system was used to bond brackets to teeth in both groups. A high intensity LED light source was used for 3 s for adhesive polymerization. Brackets were subjected to shear forces with universal test machine under 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until failure. Adhesive Remnant Index was used to assess the amount of adhesive remnant on enamel surface after shear test under 10× magnification. Two subjects from both groups were evaluated for enamel surface characteristics with scanning electron microscope (SEM). Mean shear bond strengths were found to be 5.13 ± 1.8 MPa and 5.93 ± 2.19 MPa for silicone and bioplast groups, respectively. Bioplast group showed significantly greater shear bond strength than that of the silicone group. Maximum ARI score, assessed under ×10 magnification was 3 in both groups. A score of 3 was significantly more frequent in bioplast group. Differences were seen between the groups in terms of enamel surface characteristics under SEM evaluation. It was determined that bioplast material, which is considered to be the gold standard for the indirect bonding method, has greater shear bond strength than silicone material.

Quality in orthodontics: The role of customized appliances

Orthodontics as well as dentistry are undergoing a technological revolution with advances in medical imaging, 3D printing and customization of appliances and devices. Digital orthodontics can be defined as the process of manufacturing customized appliances based on a target setup which incorporates tooth positioning in six-degrees-of-freedom. Three-dimensional medical imaging provides better diagnostic tools and allows for fabrication of orthodontic appliances based on the coordinates system of the occlusal plane within the facial anatomy. This article describes the state-of-the-art in goal-driven orthodontic treatment, warns against the commercialization of our profession, and highlights the advantages of lingual orthodontics in terms of protection of the enamel.

Standard vs computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized self-ligating systems using indirect bonding with both

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment duration and quality between standard vs computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized self-ligating systems using indirect bonding with both.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This comparative trial included 24 patients: 12 treated with a CAD/CAM custom indirect bonding self-ligating system (CAD/CAM) and 12 others treated with an indirect bonding self-ligating standard system (I-STD). For each group, overall orthodontic treatment (OT) time was calculated and included the time needed to place each arch as well as the duration of the alignment and fine-tuning phases. The quality of the final result was analyzed using the American Board of Orthodontics Cast-Radiograph Evaluation. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for age, which was slightly lower in the I-SDT group. Overall OT time was increased by 26% in the I-STD group compared with the CAD/CAM group (497 ± 40 days vs 393 ± 55 days, P = 0.0002) due to a shorter fine-tuning phase in the latter group (P<0.01). No difference was found between the groups for alignment phase. Quality of the final result was similar (I-STD, 25.7 ± 6.1; CAD/CAM, 21.6 ± 6.3) among the groups. Finally, no difference was found in the PROMs variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a 26% longer OT time when compared with the CAD/CAM customized bracket system, the indirect bonding self-ligating bracket system demonstrated the same quality of treatment. PROMs demonstrated a high level of acceptance and satisfaction for both techniques.

A comparative assessment of transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques in patients undergoing fixed mechanotherapy: A randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the transfer accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed transfer trays and compare them with transfer trays made up of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) for use in indirect bonding.

DESIGN

This was a two-arm parallel prospective randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

The trial was undertaken at the outpatient department of a dental college.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 30 patients (18 men, 12 women) were randomly allocated to two groups.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria included patients with permanent and fully erupted dentition (age range = 17-24 years), Angles class I malocclusion with crowding <3 mm requiring non-extraction treatment, good oral hygiene and no previous history of orthodontic treatment. Blinding was applicable only for outcome assessment. Indirect bonding was performed by the primary investigator for both the groups. Digital images of the pre-transfer and post-transfer brackets were obtained by means of an intra-oral scanner and compared using software. Superimpositions of pre- and post-transfer images were done to determine the transfer error for linear and angular variables for all tooth types.

RESULTS

A total of 600 teeth were bonded, 300 each for both groups. Statistically significant differences were observed in all dimension between the two groups, with 3D-printed trays being more accurate than PVS trays except in the vertical dimension (P < 0.05). The prevalence of clinically unacceptable transfer errors revealed that most of the transfer errors were in the vertical dimensions for 3D-printed trays.

CONCLUSION

3D-printed trays are more accurate than PVS trays except for transfers in vertical dimension.

Digital assessment of direct and virtual indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A clinical prospective cross-sectional comparative investigation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to use in orthodontic patients the methods of virtual indirect bonding and direct bonding using eye vision or loupes in order to compare their accuracy in the three dimensions of space.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Brackets were directly placed by one clinician to 18 patients with a total number of 298 permanent teeth. Then loupes were used to improve bracket positioning. Intraoral scanning of the dental arches was performed before bonding, after direct bonding and after the use of loupes. Subsequently, an orthodontic software was used to virtually indirectly bond the brackets on the first intraoral scanning taken before bonding. A three-dimensional mesh processing software was used to superimpose the three scans and to perform measurements in the mesio-distal and occlusal-gingival dimensions as well as in the mesio-distal angulation.

RESULTS

Virtual indirect bonding was more accurate in bracket positioning compared to direct bonding by eye vision or using loupes in all teeth and most of the teeth groups measured. Specific teeth and locations in the dental arch areas exhibited more bonding inaccuracies in the two direct bonding groups as compared to virtual indirect bonding. The use of loupes did not significantly increase the bonding accuracy compared to direct vision.

CONCLUSION

Indirect virtual bonding facilitated accurate bracket positioning compared to direct vision or with loupes direct bonding in the dimensions and angulation measured.

Digital orthodontic indirect bonding systems: A new wave

Digital technologies are progressing with leaps and bounds and the field of orthodontics is not untouched by it, with innovations like intraoral scanners and 3D printers being easy to own and maintain and increased availability of biocompatible 3D printing materials orthodontist are curious to use this technology to improve orthodontic bracket positioning which would require minimal to no repositioning during the course of treatment. The authors here have tried to outline 2 different methods using CBCT and VTO as guide to decide the bracket positioning digitally and using 3D printed Indirect Bonding trays for orthodontic bonding.

Three-dimensional evaluation of bracket placement accuracy and excess bonding adhesive depending on indirect bonding technique and bracket geometry: an in-vitro study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at comparing bracket placement and excess bonding adhesive depending on different indirect bonding (IDB) techniques and bracket geometries.

METHODS

Four hundred eighty brackets without hook (WOH) and 360 with hook (WH) were placed on 60 plaster models. Three IDB techniques were tested: polyvinyl-siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl-siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and translucence double-polyvinyl-siloxane (double-PVS). PVS-VF and PVS-putty were combined with chemically, and double-PVS was combined with light cured bonding adhesive. Virtual images of models before and after bracket transfer were generated, and computerized images were compared. Linear, angular deviations, and excess bonding adhesive were measured.

RESULTS

Linear differences between the three groups were obtained for PVS-VF (WH: 1.08, SD 0.50 mm; WOH: 0.86, SD 0.25 mm), PVS-putty (WH: 0.73, SD 0.51 mm; WOH: 0.58, SD 0.28 mm), and double-PVS (WH: 0.65, SD 0.45 mm; WOH: 0.59, SD 0.33 mm) (P < 0.001). Hooks affected bracket placement accuracy in PVS-VF (P < 0.001) and PVS-putty (P = 0.029). Angular differences were observed for brackets WOH between the PVS-VF (0.64, SD 0.48°) and double-PVS group (0.92, SD 0.76°) (P < 0.001) and within double-PVS group (WH: 0.66, SD 0.51° vs. WOH: 0.92, SD 0.76°, P < 0.001). Highest amount of excess adhesive was obtained for PVS-putty group (WH: 6.54, SD 5.31 mm 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The double-PVS group revealed promising results with respect to transfer accuracy, whereas the PVS-VF group provided least excess bonding adhesive. Basically, hooks lead to lower precision and higher excess bonding adhesive. PVS trays for IDB generate high bracket placement accuracy. PVS-putty is the easiest to handle with and also the cheapest, but leads to large excess bonding adhesive, especially in combination with hooked brackets or tubes.

In Vitro Study of Shear Bond Strength in Direct and Indirect Bonding with Three Types of Adhesive Systems

This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remaining index (ARI) using one conventional and two novel adhesive systems with clinical step reduction and direct and indirect bonding. A sample of 72 human premolars were divided into six groups of 12 samples. The first three groups (G1, G2, G3) were bonded with a direct technique, while the remaining groups (G4, G5, G6) were bonded by the indirect technique. Groups G1 and G4 used conventional acid-etching primer composite (XT); groups G2 and G5 used self-etching bonding (BO), and groups G3 and G6 had an acid-etching treatment followed by a self-adhesive composite (OC). All groups were exposed to thermocycling. Shear bond strength was analyzed with a universal test machine, and the ARI was examined with 4× magnification. The results showed statistically significant differences between the three adhesive systems. The highest strength values were observed in the XT group G1 (13.54 ± 4 MPa), while the lowest were shown in the BO G2 samples (5.05 ± 2 MPa). There was no significant difference between the direct or indirect bonding techniques on the three compared groups. The type of primer and bonding material significantly influenced the SBS. Values with self-etching bonding were below the minimum recommended for clinical use (5.9-7.8 MPa). There was no difference between indirect and direct bonding techniques. The lowest ARI scores (0-1) were observed in both self-etching and BO groups. Further clinical studies are needed to compare in vivo results.

Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

Rapid development of digital technologies and 3D printing provide new tools for orthodontic indirect bonding. The purpose of this in vitro study is to evaluate the clinical acceptability of hard CAD/CAM indirect bonding tray.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten soft silicone transfer trays and ten hard CAD/CAM trays were produced, and 200 brackets were placed on them. The brackets were then transferred to twenty stereolithography -printed models by indirect bonding. These models were scanned and digitally compared with the reference model by three-dimensional superimpositions (GOM software). The linear and angular measurements were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

For the CAD/CAM trays, 100% of the mesiodistal, vertical, and transverse measurements of incisors were within the clinically acceptable range of the American Board of Orthodontists (ABO) standards. More specifically, the clinically acceptable linear measurements were between 97 and 100% for silicone trays while they were between 89 and 100% for CAD/CAM trays. The clinically acceptable angular measurements varied between 87 and 100% for the silicone trays and between 79 and 100% for the CAD/CAM trays. Silicone trays were more precise than CAD/CAM trays. The difference was significant for all linear and angular measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

While the CAD/CAM group shows clinically acceptable results according to the ABO, silicone remains to be more precise than CAD/CAM for transfer trays and is therefore still the reference.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We demonstrate here that the orthodontic indirect bondings, whether they are realized using silicone transfer trays or CAD/CAM trays, are clinically acceptable in terms of the repositioning accuracy of brackets.

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

Introduction:

Conventional direct and indirect bonding techniques fail to obtain the ideal bracket position.

Objective:

To compare the accuracy of virtual and conventional direct bonding of orthodontic accessories.

Methods:

A single virtual configuration (dental mannequin with Class I malocclusion) served as basis for generating the reference model (treated virtually) and the intervention models (10 digital models and 10 solid models, obtained by means of prototyping). A total of 560 teeth were then equally distributed between a group of orthodontists (Group I, direct bonding; and Group II, virtual bonding), working in two different time intervals. The individual positions of the accessories were measured after three-dimensional superimposition with customized software. The Student’s-t test for paired samples, and Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis, both at the level of significance of 5%.

Results:

In comparison of the errors in raw values, there were significant differences only in the vertical (p< 0.001) and horizontal dimensions (p< 0.001). Considering the groups of ranges by clinical limits of the deviations, these differences were significant in the three dimensions, vertical (p< 0.001), horizontal (p= 0.044) and angular (p= 0.044).

Conclusion:

Virtual bonding made it possible to obtain more precise/accurate positioning of the orthodontic accessories. The potential accuracy of this method brings new perspectives to refining the indirect bonding protocols.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reproducibility of digital tray transfer fit on digital indirect bonding by analyzing the differences in bracket positions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Digital indirect bonding was performed by positioning brackets on digital models superimposed by tomography using Ortho Analyzer (3Shape) software. Thirty-three orthodontists performed indirect bonding on prototyped models of the same malocclusion using prototyped transfer trays for two types of brackets (MiniSprint Roth and BioQuick self-ligating). The models with brackets were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Trios, 3Shape). Superimpositions were made between the digital models obtained after indirect bonding and those from the original virtual setup. To analyze the differences in bracket positions, three planes were examined for each bracket: vertical, horizontal, and angulation. Three orthodontists repeated indirect bonding after 15 days, and Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to evaluate inter- and intraevaluator reproducibility and reliability, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the differences between bracket positions, and multivariate ANOVA was used to evaluate the influence of orthodontists' experience on the results.

RESULTS

Differences between bracket positions were not statistically significant, except mesial-distal discrepancies in the BioQuick group (P = .016). However, differences were not clinically significant (horizontal varied from 0.04 to 0.13 mm; angulation, 0.45° to 2.03°). There was no significant influence of orthodontist experience and years of clinical practice on bracket positions (P = .314 and P = .158). The reproducibility among orthodontists was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

The reproducibility of digital indirect bonding was confirmed in terms of bracket positions using three-dimensional printed transfer trays.

A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) method between direct bonding and indirect bonding techniques in adolescents: a single-centre, single-blind randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The aim of this two-arm parallel trial was to evaluate enamel demineralization in fixed orthodontic treatment using an indirect bonding technique in comparison to a direct bonding technique by the quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) method.

Design, settings and participants

Fifty-six patients who needed fixed orthodontic treatment were randomly separated into either the direct bonding group or the indirect bonding group. The presence and extent of lesions on the buccal surfaces of all teeth, except the molar teeth, were assessed. The percentage of fluorescence loss (ΔF and ΔFmax), the degree of demineralization (ΔQ) and lesion area (WS area) were determined using the system’s software. The data were analysed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann–Whitney U-tests (P &lt; 0.05).

Interventions

Treatment with a direct bonding or an indirect bonding technique.

Results

This study was completed with 25 patients in the indirect bonding group (12 females, 13 males; mean age: 15.42 ± 1.71 years) and 26 patients in the direct bonding group (12 females, 14 males; mean age: 14.73 ± 1.65 years). In the indirect bonding technique, a few teeth (especially mandibular left canine: 50.45 ± 93.48; 95% confidence interval: −12.35 and 113.26) were found to develop significant white spot lesion (WSL) formation (P &lt; 0.05). However, the number of teeth with demineralization was higher in the direct bonding group (P &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

The bonding procedures used in the indirect bonding technique contribute to reducing the degree of WSL formation. Further, the use of flowable composite adhesives in this bonding process is more effective at reducing the appearance of WSLs than in cases where conventional composite adhesives are used.

Limitations

The limitation of our trial may be the small sample size and the short follow-up time for the patients.

Harms

No harms were detected during the study.

Protocol

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

Registration

This trial was registered post hoc at ‘Clinical Trials’ (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), registration number (ID): NCT03738839.

Effectiveness, efficiency and adverse effects of using direct or indirect bonding technique in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The direct and indirect bonding techniques are commonly used in orthodontic treatment. The differences of the two techniques deserve evidence-based study.

Materials and methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), wherein direct and indirect bonding techniques were used in orthodontic patients were considered. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant articles published up to December 2018. Grey literature was also searched. Two authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using the data collection form. The included trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool.

Results

Of the 1557 studies screened, 42 full articles were scrutinized and assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs (247 participants) were finally included for the analyses. The qualitative synthesis showed that no significant difference existed in the accuracy of bracket placement and oral hygiene status between the two bonding techniques. The indirect bonding was found to involve less chairside time but more total working time compared with the direct bonding. The meta-analysis on bond failure rate demonstrated no significant difference between the direct and indirect bonding (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.78–1.64, I² = 22%, P = 0.50). Consistent results were obtained in the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Weak evidence suggested that the direct and indirect bonding techniques had no significant difference in bracket placement accuracy, oral hygiene status and bond failure rate, for bonding orthodontic brackets. The indirect bonding might require less chairside time but more total working time in comparison with the direct bonding technique. High-quality well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed before a conclusive recommendation could be made.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-019-0831-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Elastodontic appliance assisted fixed appliance treatment: A new two-phase protocol for extraction cases

Elastodontic appliance (EA) is a type of removable appliance that has been widely used in interceptive orthodontics. The present case report describes a severe crowding case treated with a new two-phase protocol by using an EA and a fixed appliance. A 13-year-old patient with severe dental crowding, increased overjet and overbite on a skeletal Class II base was selected. The patient had four bicuspids extracted; during the first phase of treatment, she wore the EA for 2 h during the daytime plus overnight, combined with a myofunctional exercise. During the second phase of treatment, a fixed appliance was employed to close residual space and improve the teeth angulations. The total treatment time was 14 months, of which the second phase with fixed appliance lasted 10 months. Satisfactory improvements of the overjet and teeth alignment were achieved. This case report used a new two-phase treatment protocol which resulted in a favourable outcome after comparatively short treatment.

Digital Workflow for Indirect Bonding with 2D Lingual Brackets: A Case Report and Procedure Description

Objective

During orthodontic therapy, accuracy in bonding procedures makes it easier to correct tooth alignment by decreasing the need for midcourse corrections by changing bracket positions. Indirect bonding allows the transfer of the appliance components from model casts to patient's teeth potentially meaning shorter appointments for bracket bonding and rebonding and best comfort during chairside practice. At the same time, there has been a steady increase in requests for invisible lingual orthodontic treatment.

Clinical Considerations

Accordingly, the aim of the present report is to illustrate the workflow to realize a complete digital indirect bonding for lingual brackets (2D, Forestadent). The procedure starts with intraoral digital scans, digital 3D model, and virtual bracket positioning, ending with the realization of a CAD-CAM prototyped transfer tray. A 3D intraoral scanner (True Definition, 3M) is used to create digital scans and digital models. A virtual bracket positioning is performed using software (NemoCast, Dentaurum), and a prototyped transfer tray is created by a CAD-CAM device. 2D lingual brackets were positioned inside the tray, so the appliance was bonded to the dental surface using light curing adhesive resin.

Conclusions

During orthodontic treatment, CAD/CAM technology could help clinicians. Computer-constructed transfer trays can reduce clinician error and improve the everyday workflow in the office.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy of bonding orthodontic attachments in a digital environment with the direct bonding procedure depending on the level of the orthodontist's clinical experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1120 artificial teeth of 40 identical models (20 solid sets + 20 digital sets) were divided into four groups: (1) direct bonding (experienced clinicians). (2) direct bonding (postgraduate students), (3) virtual bonding (experienced clinicians), and (4) virtual bonding (postgraduate students). The differences in individual position of the placed attachments were measured after three-dimensional superimposition of the models using customized software.

RESULTS

In the interoperator comparison, experienced clinicians were more exact than postgraduate students in virtual bonding in the angular dimension. Between the bonding techniques, virtual bonding was more accurate than the direct technique. The prevalence of errors was higher in the direct procedure than virtual bonding, and the errors were more significant in the premolar and molar teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical experience had a positive influence in achieving a higher rate of correctness/accuracy in the angular dimension only during virtual bonding. Virtual bonding was more accurate than direct bonding in the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Early diagnosis of errors in the bonding positions of attachments could be of benefit to both clinicians and patients by predicting discrepancies that may lead to undesirable orthodontic movements.

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

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.

Orthodontic Finishing: Ten Steps to Success*

An excellent orthodontic finishing is essential and involves a series of procedures such as a good diagnosis, appropriate treatment plan, and implementing the treatment plan. However, the most critical phase corresponds to finish properly or closely to the appliance removal. It is not enough only to say that it was a good finish. Specifically why, or what details are needed to be observed and obtained, and in what order to conclude that a great orthodontic finishing was done. In this article, I intend to discuss and propose procedures considered indispensable for the excellence in orthodontic finish. The goals are results with excellent oral health; facial, dental and smile harmony; functional occlusion; and especially long-term stability. In this matter, it is important to follow a series of procedures that can be summarized in 10 steps: (1) define clearly your goals; (2) have a checklist; (3) improve bracket placement; (4) repositioning of brackets; (5) make adjustments in the archwires; (6) look at the face, teeth and smile, not the appliance; (7) improve the functional occlusion; (8) reshape teeth anatomically; (9) plan the retention; and (10) plan the appliance removal. The conclusions are that following this steps and keeping in mind that in clinical orthodontic practice is necessary to clearly define the objectives, to know the basic and have technical domain; the result will be inevitable: Success.

Indirect orthodontic bonding--a modified technique for improved efficiency and precision

INTRODUCTION:

The indirect bonding technique optimizes fixed appliance installation at the orthodontic office, ensuring precise bracket positioning, among other advantages. In this laboratory clinical phase, material and methods employed in creating the transfer tray are decisive to accuracy.

OBJECTIVE:

This article describes a simple, efficient and reproducible indirect bonding technique that allows the procedure to be carried out successfully. Variables influencing the orthodontic bonding are analyzed and discussed in order to aid professionals wishing to adopt the indirect bonding technique routinely in their clinical practice.

Indirect Bonding Revisited

In recent years, the popularity of indirect bonding increased due to advantages such as reduction of chair time and enhancement of patient comfort. Although the indirect bonding technique has improved over the years, the literature has shown different techniques of bracket placement; furthermore, new materials were specially developed for this technique. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the literature, advantages, disadvantages, and laboratory and clinical stages of the indirect bonding technique.

Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system

INTRODUCTION

The first straight-wire appliance was introduced over 40 years ago to increase the consistency and efficiency of orthodontic treatment. More recently, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology has been used to create individualized orthodontic appliances. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness and efficiency of CAD/CAM customized orthodontic appliances compared with direct and indirect bonded stock orthodontic brackets.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 3 treatment groups: group 1 patients were direct bonded with self-ligating appliances, group 2 patients were indirect bonded with self-ligating appliances, and group 3 patients were indirect bonded with CAD/CAM self-ligating appliances. Complete pretreatment and posttreatment records were obtained for all patients. The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index was used to evaluate the pretreatment records, and the posttreatment outcomes were analyzed using the ABO Cast-Radiograph Evaluation. All data collection and analysis were completed by 1 evaluator.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the ABO Discrepancy Index or the ABO Cast-Radiograph Evaluation among the groups. Treatment times for the 3 groups were significantly different; the CAD/CAM group was the shortest at 13.8 ± 3.4 months, compared with 21.9 ± 5.0 and 16.9 ± 4.1 months for the direct bonded and indirect bonded groups, respectively. The number of treatment appointments for the CAD/CAM group was significantly fewer than for the direct bonded group.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system evaluated in this study was as effective in treatment outcome measures as were standard brackets bonded both directly and indirectly. The CAD/CAM appliance was more efficient in regard to treatment duration, although the decrease in total archwire appointments was minimal. Further investigation is needed to better quantify the clinical benefits of CAD/CAM orthodontic appliances.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of direct or indirect bracket placement.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized comparison of 2 different methods of bracket placement.

SETTING

Queens Hospital, Burton upon Trent, UK between February and May 2001.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Twenty-six consecutive patients requiring upper and lower MBT trade mark pre-adjusted Edgewise appliances had their labial segments bonded directly or indirectly according to a split mouth system of allocation. Before and after bond-up all brackets were photographed and measured from tracings to determine positional differences from the ideal.

RESULTS

Using ANOVA (General Linear Model), vertical errors were found to be greater than those in the horizontal plane, which in turn were greater than angular errors (p<0.05). Errors were greater in the maxillary arch than in the mandibular arch. There was no significant difference between the mean errors produced by the two methods of bracket placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean bracket placement errors were similar with both techniques.

How and why of orthodontic bond failures: An in vivo study

Introduction:

The bonding of orthodontic brackets and their failure rates by both direct and in-direct procedures are well-documented in orthodontic literature. Over the years different adhesive materials and various indirect bonding transfer procedures have been compared and evaluated for bond failure rates. The aim of our study is to highlight the use of a simple, inexpensive and ease of manipulation of a single thermo-plastic transfer tray and the use the of a single light cure adhesive to evaluate the bond failure rates in clinical situations.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 30 patients were randomly divided into two groups (Group A and Group B). A split-mouth study design was used, for, both the groups so that they were distributed equally with-out bias. After initial prophylaxis, both the procedures were done as per manufactures instructions. All patients were initially motivated and reviewed for bond failures rates for 6 months.

Results:

Bond failure rates were assessed for over-all direct and indirect procedures, anterior and posterior arches, and for individual tooth. Z-test was used for statistically analyzing, the normal distribution of the sample in a spilt mouth study. The results of the two groups were compared and P value was calculated using Z-proportion test to assess the significance of the bond failure.

Conclusion:

Over-all bond failure was more for direct bonding. Anterior bracket failure was more in-direct bonding than indirect procedure, which showed more posterior bracket failures. In individual tooth bond failure, mandibular incisor, and premolar brackets showed more failure, followed by maxillary premolars and canines.