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

Ahmed Mahran; Wael Mohamed Mobarak Refai; Ahmed Nasef Abdelhameed; Ahmed Shawky Hashem

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.10025

Authors

Ahmed Mahran Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Beni-Suef University, Beni Suef, Egypt
Wael Mohamed Mobarak Refai Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minya, Egypt
Ahmed Nasef Abdelhameed Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minya, Egypt
Ahmed Shawky Hashem Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minya, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.10025

Keywords:

Indirect bonding, CAD/CAM, Transfer tray, 3D printing

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Evolution of treatment mechanics and contemporary appliance design in orthodontics: A 40-year perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(6):654-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.012 PMid:26038069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.012

Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):236-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9416(72)90264-3 PMid:4559001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90264-3

Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(4):269-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90461-4 PMid:6760721 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90461-4

Koo BC, Chung CH, Vanarsdall RL. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(3):346-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70248-9 PMid:10474109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70248-9

Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, Spary DJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod. 2004;31(2):132-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020427 PMid:15210929 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020427

Bozelli JV, Bigliazzi R, Barbosa HA, Ortolani CL, Bertoz FA, Faltin Junior K. Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(6):51-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2176-94512013000600009 PMid:24351150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512013000600009

Christensen LR, Cope JB. Digital technology for indirect bonding. Semin Orthod. 2018;24(4):451-60. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2018.10.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2018.10.009

Layman B. Digital bracket placement for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod. 2019;53(7):387-96. PMid:31648214

Schmid J, Brenner D, Recheis W, Hofer-Picout P, Brenner M, Crismani AG. Transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques-an in vitro study with 3D scanned models. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(5):549-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy006 PMid:29471483 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy006

El Nigoumi A. Assessing the accuracy of indirect bonding with 3D scanning technology. J Clin Orthod. 2016;50(10):613-9. PMid:27888654

Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American board of orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(5):589-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70179-9 PMid:9810056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9

Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod. 1978;74(1):62-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90046-5 PMid:356618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90046-5

Larson BE, Vaubel CJ, Grünheid T. Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted outcomes. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):557-62. https://doi.org/10.2319/080612-635.1 PMid:23181776 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/080612-635.1

Grünheid T, Lee MS, Larson BE. Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(3):468-74. https://doi.org/10.2319/042415-279.1 PMid:26355994 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/042415-279.1

Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang Z, Xu W, Xiao L. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(1):67-73. https://doi.org/10.2319/013120-70.1 PMid:33289807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/013120-70.1

Armstrong D, Shen G, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. A comparison of accuracy in bracket positioning between two techniques- -localizing the centre of the clinical crown and measuring the distance from the incisal edge. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(5):430-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm037 PMid:17660488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm037

Bachour PC, Klabunde R, Grünheid T. Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(3):372-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/073021-596.1 PMid:35006236 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/073021-596.1

Son KH, Park JW, Lee DK, Kim KD, Baek SH. New virtual orthodontic treatment system for indirect bonding using the stereolithographic technique. Korean J Orthod. 2011;41(2):138-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.2.138

Brown MW, Koroluk L, Ko CC, Zhang K, Chen M, Nguyen T. Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(6):1067-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.029 PMid:26672713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.029

El-Timamy AM, El-Sharaby FA, Eid FH, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional imaging for indirect-direct bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(6):928-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.009 PMid:27242004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.009

Aksakalli S, Demir A. Indirect bonding: A literature review. Eur J Gen Dent. 2012;1(01):6-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-9626.101344

Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101-21. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21 PMid:29989757