Comparison of Bracket Position Accuracy with Different CAD/CAM Indirect Bonding Systems

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of three different digital bracket positioning systems, comparing vertical, mesiodistal and buccolingual accuracy. Material and Methods: The same case was sent to Orapix, Insignia, and Orthocad systems and the brackets were bonded to the malocclusion models. Damon 3 MX brackets were used with all systems and the brackets were bonded to the models with the same bonding protocol and materials. The comparison of the position of each single bracket was made with digital photography, and ImageJ software was used to find the length in pixels and then convert it to hundredths of a mm for vertical, mesiodistal and buccolingual displacement, compared to the setup. Results: Insignia System reported the average higher vertical displacement (0.28 mm), compared with the other two appliances (0.22-0.23 mm), and showed the lowest average displacement for the mesiodistal and buccolingual positioning (0.14 and 0.07 mm, respectively). However, these slight bracket positioning variations between these bonding systems were not statistically different (p>0.05). Conclusion: The three systems analyzed were shown to be accurate in positioning the brackets, and none of them was statistically better.

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

“…For the Insignia™ jigs, the B-L translation in most brackets was more buccally positioned in most teeth (92.92%). This finding agrees with the studies reported by Paolo et al [ 42 ] and Grunheid et al [ 37 ]; they found that most of the brackets are placed more buccally from the buccolingual aspect when compared three different CAD/CAM indirect bonding systems in the former study, while in the second study was used the vinyl polysiloxane trays that have some flexibility, which may allow the adhesive to push the brackets a little bit more buccally. At the same time, the frequency of angular errors was in the torque for most brackets with more buccal crown torque (73.33%).…”

“…This error can be attributed to the consistency of the bonding material under the customized metal bracket base [ 43 , 44 ]. In addition, the jig could not cover the undercut of a bracket, and the elasticity of the separator material that would be used to make a free gap between the transfer jig and the bracket may have an effect [ 42 ]. So, these properties of the jig material could influence the accuracy of the bracket position.…”