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

Abstract

Although both transfer methods showed a high precision, silicone trays scored better in terms of accuracy than double-vacuum forms.

Accurate bracket placement using a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing–guided bonding device: An in vivo study

“…With the advance of digital technology, 3D assessment using the scanned model has been proposed to be more accurate than 2D assessment using digital photography. 5,[13][14][15]18 In this study, a semiautomated 3D measurement in Geomagic Studio 2013 was used to measure the position and orientation deviations for 205 brackets. Because the local coordinate system had been prelocated on the bracket, there was no need to identify the corresponding reference points on the teeth from different patients repeatedly.…”

“…The sample size was determined according to previous studies. 5,15 With an observed sample size of n 5 205, a power analysis for Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (2-tailed) conducted a posteriori using G*Power 3.1.9.3 indicated 100% power to detect a small effect size (Cohen's d 5 0.4) at a significance level of 0.05.…”

“…Orthodontists have striven to improve the accuracy of the bracket bonding for years. 1 Since the introduction, in 1972, by Silverman et al, 2 of transfer trays of indirect bonding, technique has improved with regard to design and fabrication; for example, polyvinyl siloxane trays, [3][4][5] vacuum-formed trays, [5][6][7] combination of polyvinyl siloxane and vacuum-formed trays, 8 3-dimensional (3D) printed trays, [9][10][11] and transfer jigs. 12 Among these approaches, there are 3 major common steps in the fabrication of a traditional transfer tray: bonding brackets on a stone model, forming the transfer tray, and then removing the transfer tray with brackets from the stone model.…”

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

“…When comparing the groups with respect to operator experience, experienced clinicians committed a lower percentage of errors in the angular dimension. The results of errors that exceeded the clinical limit were reported in relation to the types of guides 13,21 and influence of the cusp height of posterior teeth, 10 but they have not been specific about the positioning of the attachments.…”

“…Additionally, all the solid cast models were prototyped with the same type of resin and scanned with a single scanner. 20,21 The methods for measuring the positions of the orthodontic attachments have improved over time. Most recently, the use of superimposed three-dimensional (3D) images with cone beam computed tomography incorporated a new level of precision into analyses.…”