Transfer Accuracy of Two 3D Printed Trays for Indirect Bracket Bonding—An In Vitro Pilot Study

Jungbauer, Rebecca; Breunig, Jonas; Schmid, Alois; Hüfner, Mira; Kerberger, Robert; Rauch, Nicole; Proff, Peter; Drescher, Dieter; Becker, Kathrin

doi:10.3390/app11136013

Cited by 15 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Independent of the vertical displacement, for both design versions, the canines generally showed the highest mean values for angular deviations among all tooth groups. This finding matched the ones of Jungbauer et al [ 17 ] and Koch et al [ 30 ]. Since this observation was independent of both tray design versions and studies, it was likely linked to the rounded tooth morphology of the canines, which caused a point contact of the bracket base to the labial surface.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Other studies on 3D-printed IDB trays [ 17 , 18 , 23 , 24 , 26 ] used a third concept of an IDB tray covering the dental arch, sometimes including the molars, with pouch-like shaped sleeves holding the attachments in place. We imitated this approach in our tray design V2 and compared its transfer accuracy to a different design version (V1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the elasticity of a chosen resin for 3D-printed trays directly correlates to the success of indirect bonding as published by Jungbauer et al [ 17 ] and is predetermined by the industry (Shore-A/Shore-D hardness), we decided to manipulate the elasticity by choosing two design versions that differed in material thickness and its filigree character in specific areas. Unfortunately, the DLP or SLA printing technology does not allow the combination of different materials to be printed simultaneously and, therefore, the mixture of different properties as they are needed within certain areas in an IDB tray is impossible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, however, technological and digital progress in the field has promised to facilitate the IDB procedure by saving resources due to virtual bracket and tube positioning and, hence, the direct [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] or indirect [ 20 ] manufacturing of the IDB tray. Hereby, an intraoral scan of the patient’s dental situation is needed as a basis for further processing in an orthodontic treatment planning and simulation software, specifically when virtually placing the attachments on the patient’s teeth and designing an IDB tray based upon this digital set-up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this, the IDB tray needs to have sufficient occlusal support to ensure a correct vertical position on the tooth surface and a vestibular extension to hold the brackets and tubes with an elaborate retention mechanism in place and, at the same time, allowing an easy removal without the risk of debonding brackets. Nowadays, an individualized tray design that meets all these requirements can be 3D-printed [ 6 , 11 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding (IDB) Tray Design Versions and Their Influence on the Transfer Accuracy

Glasenapp¹,

Hofmann²,

Süpple³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aims to investigate the transfer accuracy of two different design versions for 3D-printed indirect bonding (IDB) trays. Materials and Methods: Digital plaster models of 27 patients virtually received vestibular attachments on every tooth using OnyxCeph³™ (Image Instruments, Chemnitz, Germany). Based on these simulated bracket and tube positions, two versions of transfer trays were designed for each dental arch and patient, which differed in the mechanism of bracket retention: Variant one (V1) had arm-like structures protruding from the tray base and reaching into the horizontal and vertical bracket slots, and variant two (V2) had a pocket-shaped design enclosing the brackets from three sides. Both tray designs were 3D-printed with the same digital light processing (DLP) printer using a flexible resin-based material (IMPRIMO® LC IBT/Asiga MAX™, SCHEU-DENTAL, Iserlohn, Germany). Brackets and tubes (discovery® smart/pearl, Ortho-Cast M-Series, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) were inserted into the respective retention mechanism of the trays and IDB was performed on corresponding plaster models. An intraoral scan (TRIOS® 3W, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was performed to capture the actual attachment positions and compared to the virtually planned positions with Geomagic© Control (3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA) using a scripted calculation tool, which superimposed the respective tooth surfaces. The resulting attachment deviations were determined in three linear (mesiodistal, vertical and orovestibular) and three angular (torque, rotation and tip) directions and analyzed with a descriptive statistical analysis. A comparison between the two IDB tray designs was conducted using a mixed model analysis (IBM, SPSS® Statistics 27, Armonk, NY, USA). Results: Both design versions of the 3D-printed IDB trays did not differ significantly in their transfer accuracy (p > 0.05). In total, 98% (V1) and 98.5% (V2) of the linear deviations were within the clinically acceptable range of ±0.2 mm. For the angular deviations, 84.9% (V1) and 86.8% (V2) were within the range of ±1°. With V1, most deviations occurred in the mesiodistal direction (3.3%) and in rotation (18%). With V2, most deviations occurred in the vertical direction (3.8%) and in palatinal and lingual crown torque (16.3%). Conclusions: The transfer accuracies of the investigated design versions for 3D-printed IDB trays show good and comparable results albeit their different retention mechanisms for the attachments and are, therefore, both suitable for clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding (IDB) Tray Design Versions and Their Influence on the Transfer Accuracy

Glasenapp¹,

Hofmann²,

Süpple³

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Influence of the design of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays and experience of the clinician on the accuracy of bracket placement

Sabbagh,

Hoffmann,

Wichelhaus

et al. 2024

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim was to investigate the influence of three different three-dimensional (3D)-printed bonding tray designs and professional experience on accuracy of indirect bracket placement. Methods Virtual bracket placement was performed on a scanned dental model using OnyxCeph software (Image Instruments, Chemnitz, Germany). Three different designs for indirect bonding trays (open, semi-open, and closed design) were created and produced using a 3D printer. To analyze the influence of professional experience, one of the three tray designs was produced twice. In this case, bracket placement was performed by an inexperienced dentist. Bracket positions were scanned after the indirect bonding procedure. Linear and angular transfer errors were measured. Significant differences between the target and actual situation were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and χ2 test. Results All bonding tray designs resulted in comparable results. The results of the unexperienced dentist showed significantly higher deviations than those for the experienced orthodontist in the torque direction. However, the mean values were comparable. The open tray design exceeded the clinically acceptable limits of 0.25 mm and 1° more often. The inexperienced dentist exceeded these limits significantly more often than the experienced orthodontist in the vertical and torque direction. The immediate bracket loss rate showed no significant differences between the different tray designs. Significantly more bracket losses were observed for the inexperienced dentist during the procedure compared to the experienced orthodontist. Conclusions The bonding tray design and professional experience had an influence on the exceedance of clinically relevant limits of positioning accuracy and on the bracket loss rate.

show abstract

Accuracy of 3-dimensional–printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in digital indirect bonding: An in vivo study

Fiorillo

Campobasso

Caldara

et al. 2023

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transfer Accuracy of Two 3D Printed Trays for Indirect Bracket Bonding—An In Vitro Pilot Study

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding (IDB) Tray Design Versions and Their Influence on the Transfer Accuracy

Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding (IDB) Tray Design Versions and Their Influence on the Transfer Accuracy

Influence of the design of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays and experience of the clinician on the accuracy of bracket placement

Accuracy of 3-dimensional–printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in digital indirect bonding: An in vivo study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About