Quick Indirect Bonding System (Quick IDBS): An Indirect Bonding Technique Using a Double-Silicone Bracket Transfer Tray

Koga, Masatada; Watanabe, Kazuya; Koga, Tatsuya

doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2006.11.004

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Xue

Guo

et al. 2020

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Xue

Guo

et al. 2020

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, all trays extended from the facial over to the occlusal and at least half of the lingual surfaces. 2,[10][11][12][13] Working model-tray assemblies were soaked in water for 1 hour to dissolve the separating agent. After removal, trays with brackets were cleaned using a detergent solution in an ultrasonic cleaner as described by Sondhi. 12 A two-part (A-B) chemically cured bonding adhesive (Sondhi Rapid-Set Indirect Bonding Adhesive, 3M Unitek, St Paul, Minn) was used during IDB.…”

Section: Indirect Bonding Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques

Castilla

Crowe

Moses

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. Materials and Methods: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double-PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n 5 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. Results: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n 5 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n 5 1; P , .05). With one exception, all significant differences were #0.26 mm and most (65%) were #0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. Conclusions: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:607-614.)

show abstract

“…Koga ve ark. 27 çift kat şeffaf silikon aktarma kaşığını tanıtmışlardır. Kaşığın alt tabakasında; braketlerin oluşturduğu girintilerden kolaylıkla çıkabile-cek esnekliğe sahip yumuşak kıvamlı şeffaf silikon kullanılırken, üst tabakası kaşığın formunun bozulmasını engelleyen sert şeffaf silikondan hazırlanmaktadır.…”

Section: Aktarma Kaşığı Yapımında Kullanılan Materyallerunclassified

Ortodontide indirekt yapıştırma tekniği

Yildirim

Aydinatay

2015

Acta Odontol Turc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZETSabit ortodontik elemanların, bantlara gereksinim olmaksızın doğrudan dişler üzerine yapıştırıldığı 'Direkt Yapış-tırma Tekniği' ile braketleme için klinikte harcanan süre kısaltılmış, daha estetik ve hijyenik bir ortodontik tedavi uygulama imkanı elde edilmiştir. Ancak bu teknikte, özel-likle arka dişlere doğrudan görüş ve ulaşım sorunu gibi sebeplerle braket konumlarında hatalarla karşılaşılmıştır. Bu hataların önlenmesi amacıyla 'İndirekt Yapıştırma Tekniği' geliştirilmiştir. Bu tekniğin ilk geliştirildiği yıllarda gözlenen direkt yapıştırılan braketlere kıyasla bağlanma dayanımının daha az olması, yüksek braket kopma oranları, braketlerin etrafından taşan adezivlerin periodontal dokuları irrite etmesi ve oral hijyeni olumsuz etkilemesi, laboratuvar aşamasının uzun ve zaman alıcı olması gibi pek çok olumsuz özelliği günümüzde geliştirilen materyaller ve tekniklerle birlikte elimine edilmiştir. Günümüzde indirekt teknik ile yapıştırılan braketler, direkt yapıştırılan braketlerle benzer bağlanma dayanımı göstermektedir. Ayrıca indirekt ve direkt yapıştırma tekniklerinin, periodontal dokular üzerine etkileri de benzerdir. Ancak indirekt yapıştırma tekniği, hem laboratuvar hem de klinik aşamalarında daha fazla özen ve hassasiyet gerektirmektedir ve maliyeti daha yüksektir. Hekimin bu iki yapıştırma yönteminden hangisini seçeceği; laboratuvar süresi, klinik süresi, maliyet, hasta konforu gibi etkenler ve kendi kişisel tercihine bağlı olarak değişebilir.

show abstract

Quick Indirect Bonding System (Quick IDBS): An Indirect Bonding Technique Using a Double-Silicone Bracket Transfer Tray

Cited by 10 publications

References 1 publication

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

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

Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques

Ortodontide indirekt yapıştırma tekniği

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About