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

Abstract

Introduction: A protocol was introduced to achieve accurate bracket placement in vivo, which consisted of operative procedures for precise control, and a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing-guided bonding device. To evaluate the accuracy of this protocol, a 3-dimensional assessment was performed. Methods: Ten consecutive patients were enrolled. Strictly following the protocol, from December 2017 to March 2018, brackets were placed on the teeth of each patient using the device. To evaluate the accuracy, deviations of positions and orientations for bracket placement were measured. Each patient was followed up after 3 months regarding bracket failures. Results: The guided bonding device was used in all cases, and a total of 205 brackets were successfully bonded and evaluated. Except for 15.12% brackets with torque deviation over 2 , the deviations in mesiodistal, buccolingual, vertical, rotation, and angulation were below the clinical acceptable range (0.5 mm in translation or 2 in orientation) for all brackets. In the 3-month follow-up, there was no bracket failure in any patient. Conclusion: This protocol transferred the planned bracket position from the digital setup to patient's dentition with generally high positional accuracy. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157:269-77)

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

“…The error in transfer was more in the occlusal direction for the 3D group when compared with the PVS group. Similar trends in transfer error were observed in the occlusal direction by Xue et al (2020). Vertical errors were also the highest for 3D-printed trays in a study by Kim et al (2018), where they compared transfer errors for brackets with teeth with different cusp heights.…”

“…Kim et al (2018), who evaluated 3D-printed trays, also reported the frequencies of vertical errors > 0.5 mm (3.3% and 6.7% for the experimental and control groups, respectively); frequencies of angulation, rotation and torque errors > 1° were 53.3%, 43.3% and 60%, respectively, for the control group, and 60%, 60% and 73.3%, respectively, for the experimental group. Xue et al (2020) reported 15.12% brackets with torque deviation > 2°; the deviations in mesiodistal, buccolingual, vertical, rotation and angulation were below the clinical acceptable range.…”

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

“…The 3D printing of IDB trays was investigated in only a few in vitro studies. The testing of different materials and designs endorses their clinical usability [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].…”

CAD/CAM-gestützte Planung und Übertragungsmöglichkeiten von Brackets und Gaumenimplantaten

“…In der Literatur beschrieben wird die Herstellung der mit Brackets versehenen Modelle (Bracket-Transfer-Modell) im 3D-Druckverfahren [3,22]. Im Anschluss wird wie bei der klassischen Herstellung die Schablone mittels thermoplastischem Tiefziehverfahren oder aus Polyvinyl-Siloxan im Labor hergestellt und ausgearbeitet [24]. Final können vor der intraoralen Insertion die passenden Brackets eingegliedert und indirekt geklebt werden [22].…”

“…Das Kleben der Brackets erfolgt ähnlich wie beim direkten Kleben, allerdings in die virtuell geplante Position und macht gleichzeitig die Entfernung von überschüssigem Komposit möglich. Die Genauigkeit der Übertragung wird von den Autoren als hoch beschrieben[24].Grundsätzlich stellen sich die folgenden Fragen: Ist die computergestützte Positionierung der Brackets genauer als die manuelle Positionierung durch den Behandler auf dem Gipsmodell oder direkt intraoral auf den Zähnen? Bislang gibt es auf diese Frage keine wissenschaftlich fundierte Antwort.…”