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

Comparison of the accuracy of bracket axial positioning with and without radiographic support and according to practitioner experience: A three-dimensional study

INTRODUCTION

Accurate bracket positioning remains challenging. To avoid angulation errors, some recommend examining the panoramic radiograph during bonding. However, it can cause distortions. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides a more precise panoramic reconstruction but with higher radiation doses. The main objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of axial positioning between direct bonding without radiography, with conventional panoramic radiograph, and with panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. The secondary objectives are to evaluate positioning accuracy of each tooth and to assess the influence of practitioner level of experience.

METHODS

Thirty practitioners, divided into two groups based on their experience performed direct bonding on a model thrice: without radiography, then with the conventional panoramic radiograph, then with the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. Models were scanned, and angulation errors were measured using OrthoAnalyzer. Values were compared using the Friedman's test followed by the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (P-value = 0.05).

RESULTS

For the low level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly greater than the accepted limit without radiographic reference, and significantly lower with CBCT reconstruction. For the high level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly lower than the accepted limit for the three bonding methods. For every tooth, using the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT as a reference, was the most accurate method, regardless of the level of experience. More experienced practitioners made fewer errors for the three methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Panoramic reconstruction from CBCT is the most accurate method to limit angulation errors during direct bonding. Conventional panoramic radiography remains a reliable tool if used with caution. Bonding without any radiographic reference should be avoided especially for less experienced practitioners.

Do the Various Indirect Bonding Techniques Provide the Same Accuracy for Orthodontic Bracket Placement? (Randomized Clinical Trial)

Background

For orthodontic treatment to be effective, bracket placement must be precise to make the finishing stage easier, leading to an ideal occlusion with minimal intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of manual and digital bracket positioning techniques utilizing computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) jigs, 3D-printed indirect bonding trays (IBT), and double-layer vacuum-formed thermoplastic IBT.

Methods

This study was done by scanning the dental arch of 30 orthodontic patients. The virtual setup and bracket positioning were performed with the Insignia™ system for ten patients, and 3D Maestro® software was used for the virtual setup of the remaining 20 patients. At the same time, the bracket positioning of 10 patients was done digitally by the 3D Maestro® software and the remaining 10 patients manually through the Ray Set® device. IBT were fabricated by CAD/CAM system, 3D printer, and vacuum-formed thermoplastic machine. A virtual bracket position was compared to the actual bracket position using the best-fit method of 3D digital superimposition in Geomagic® Control X™ (CX) software to determine how accurate it was in terms of linear and angular accuracy. Statistical analyses using SPSS 26.0 including Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the intra-examiner reproducibility. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to measure normality distribution. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to analyze the differences between bracket positions within each group.

Results

Although there were obvious positional discrepancies between several readings, they were still within clinically acceptable ranges.

Conclusions

All types of IBT would translate the planned position of the bracket from the digital and manual techniques to the teeth of patients with accepted precision in both linear and angular measurements; in addition, the error rate is about the same for all types of IBT. This trial is registered with NCT05549089.

Does clinical experience affect the bracket bonding accuracy of guided bonding devices in vitro?

OBJECTIVES

To study whether and how the clinical experience of the operator affects the accuracy of bracket placement using guided bonding devices (GBDs) in vitro.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five resin models were bonded virtually with brackets, and the corresponding GBDs were generated and three-dimensionally printed. Nine operators, which included three dental students, three orthodontic students, and three orthodontists, bonded the brackets on the resin models using GBDs on a dental mannequin. After being bonded with brackets, the models were scanned, and the actual and designed positions of the brackets were compared.

RESULTS

There was no immediate debonding. The orthodontists spent a significantly shorter time (22.36 minutes) in bracket bonding than the dental students (24.62 minutes; P < .05). The brackets tended to deviate to the buccal side in the dental student group. Linear deviations tended to be smallest in the orthodontic student group, but no significant difference was found among operators with different clinical experience (P > .5). All linear and angular deviations in each group were under 0.5 mm and 2°, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical experience was positively related to the bonding accuracy using GBDs, especially in the buccolingual dimension. Inexperience also led to longer bonding duration. However, bonding accuracy was clinically acceptable in general.

Accuracy of 3-dimensional-printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in digital indirect bonding: An in vivo study

INTRODUCTION

This paper evaluated the accuracy of a computer-aided design and manufacturing indirect bonding technique using a new customized 3D-printed transfer tray and a flash-free adhesive system for orthodontic bonding.

METHODS

This in vivo study analyzed 106 teeth selected from 9 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Quantitative deviation analysis was performed to evaluate the bonding positioning errors, assessing the differences between the virtually planned and the clinically transferred bracket position after indirect bonding procedures by superimposing 3-dimensional dental scans. Estimated marginal means were evaluated for individual brackets and tubes, arch sectors, and overall collected measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 86 brackets and 20 buccal tubes were analyzed. Among individual teeth, mandibular second molars showed the highest positioning errors, whereas maxillary incisors reported the lowest values. Considering arch sectors, the posterior areas showed greater displacements than the anterior areas, as the right side compared to the left side, with a higher error rate reported for the mandibular arch than the maxillary arch. The overall bonding inaccuracy measurement was 0.35 mm, below the clinical acceptability limit of 0.50 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of a 3-dimensional-printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in computer-aided design and manufacturing indirect bonding was generally high, with greater positioning errors for posterior teeth.

Transfer Accuracy of 3D-Printed Customized Devices in Digital Indirect Bonding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim

To evaluate in vitro and in vivo the accuracy of 3D-printed customized transfer devices during indirect bonding technique (IBT).

Methods

A search for articles published in the English language until April 2022 was carried out using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases and by applying a specific search strategy for each database to identify all potentially relevant in vivo or in vitro studies. After the removal of duplicate articles and data extraction according to the participants-intervention-comparison-outcome-study design schema scheme, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care Criteria for Grading Assessed Studies.

Results

The initial search identified 126 articles, 43 of which were selected by title and abstract. After full-text reading, 15 papers were selected for the qualitative analysis and seven studies for the quantitative analysis. The evidence quality for the selected studies was moderate.

Conclusions

Except for the bucco-lingual direction, the 3D-printed customized devices have a transfer accuracy within the clinically acceptable limits established by the American Board of Orthodontics. Therefore, 3D-printed transfer devices may be considered an accurate method for bonding position during IBT, both in vitro and in vivo. Additional randomized clinical studies in vivo should be suggested.

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.

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 3-dimensional printed bracket transfer tray using an in-office indirect bonding system

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the bracket positioning accuracy of the indirect bonding (IDB) transfer tray fabricated in-clinic using the tray printing (TP) and marker-model printing methods (MP).

METHODS

The TP group was further divided into 2 groups (single-tray printing [STP] and multiple-tray printing [MTP]) depending on the presence of a tray split created using the 3-dimensional (3D) software. Five duplicated plaster models were used for each of the 3 experimental groups, and a total of 180 artificial teeth, except the second molar, were evaluated in the experiment. The dental model was scanned using a model scanner (E3; 3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark). Virtual brackets were placed on facial axis points, and the IDB trays were designed and fabricated using a 3D printer (VIDA; EnvisionTEC, Mich). The accuracy of bracket positioning was evaluated by comparing the planned bracket positions and the actual bracket positions using 3D analysis on inspection software. The main effects and first-order interaction effects were analyzed together by analysis for the analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The mean distance and height errors were significantly lower in the STP group than those in the MP and MTP groups (P <0.05). The mean distance error was 0.06 mm in the STP group and 0.09 mm in the MP and MTP groups. The mean height error was 0.10 mm in the STP group and 0.15 mm and 0.18 mm in MP and MTP groups, respectively. However, no significant differences were observed in the angular errors among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The in-office-fabricated IDB system with computer-aided design and 3D printer is clinically applicable after considering the linear and angular errors. We recommend IDB trays fabricated using the STP method owing to the lower frequency of bracket positioning errors and ease of fabrication.

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.

A Novel Digital Technique for Measuring the Accuracy of an Indirect Bonding Technique Using Fixed Buccal Multibracket Appliances

The aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy and predictability of the indirect bonding technique of fixed buccal multibracket appliances using a customized iterative closest point algorithm. Materials and Methods: A total of 340 fixed buccal multibracket appliances were virtually planned and bonded on 34 experimental anatomically based acrylic resin models by using orthodontic templates designed and manufactured to indirectly bond the fixed buccal multibracket appliances. Afterwards, the models were submitted to a three-dimensional impression technique by an intraoral scanner, and the standard tessellation language digital files from the virtual planning and the digital impression were aligned, segmented, and realigned using morphometric software. Linear positioning deviations (mm) of the fixed buccal multibracket appliances were quantified at mesio-distal, bucco-lingual/palatal, and gingival/occlusal (vertical) planes, and angular deviations (°) were also recorded by analyzing the torque, tip, and rotation using a customized iterative closest point algorithm, the script for which allowed for an accuracy measurement procedure by comparing the tessellation network positioning of both standard tessellation language digital files. Results: The mean mesio-distal deviation was −0.065 ± 0.081 mm, the mean bucco-lingual/palatal deviation was 0.129 ± 0.06 m, the mean vertical deviation was −0.094 ± 0.147 mm, the mean torque deviation was −0.826 ± 1.721°, the mean tip deviation was −0.271 ± 0.920°, and the mean rotation deviation was −0.707 ± 0.648°. Conclusion: The indirect bonding technique provides accurate and predictable positioning of fixed buccal multibracket appliances.

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

Objective: A digital workflow opens up new possibilities for the indirect bonding (IDB) of brackets. We tested if the printing orientation for bracket transfer models on the build platform of a 3D printer influences the accuracy of the following IDB method. We also evaluated the clinical acceptability of the IDB method combining digitally planned and printed transfer models with the conventional fabrication of pressure-molded transfer trays. Materials and Methods: In total, 27 digitally planned bracket transfer models were printed with both 15° and 75° angulation from horizontal plane on the build platform of a digital light processing (DLP) printer. Brackets were temporarily bonded to the transfer models and pressure-molded trays were produced on them. IDB was then performed using the trays on the respective plaster models. The plaster models were scanned with an optical scanner. Digitally planned pre-bonding and scanned post-bonding bracket positions were superimposed with a software and resulted in three linear and three angular deviations per bracket. Results: No statistically significant differences of the transfer accuracy of printed transfer models angulated 15° or 75° on the 3D printer build platform were found. About 97% of the linear and 82% of the angular deviations were within the clinically acceptable range of ±0.2 mm and ±1°, respectively. The highest inaccuracies in the linear dimension occurred in the vertical towards the gingival direction and in the angular dimension in palatal crown torque. Conclusion: For the IDB method used, the printing orientation on the build platform did not have a significant impact on the transfer accuracy.

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.

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.