scholarly journals Bracket transfer accuracy with two different three-dimensional printed transfer trays vs silicone transfer trays

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Hoffmann ◽  
Hisham Sabbagh ◽  
Andera Wichelhaus ◽  
Andreas Kessler
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Processing System ◽  
Similar Distribution ◽  
Digital Light Processing ◽  
Directional Bias ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Transfer Tray ◽  
Transfer Accuracy ◽  
Bracket Positioning

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the transfer accuracy of two different three-dimensional printed trays (Dreve FotoDent ITB [Dreve Dentamid, Unna, Germany] and NextDent Ortho ITB [NextDent, Soesterberg, the Netherlands]) to polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) trays for indirect bonding. Materials and Methods A total of 10 dental models were constructed for each investigated material. Virtual bracket placement was performed on a scanned dental model using OnyxCeph (OnyxCeph 3D Lab, Chemnitz, Germany). Three-dimensional printed transfer trays using a digital light processing system three-dimensional printer and silicone transfer trays were produced. Bracket positions were scanned after the indirect bonding procedure. Linear and angular transfer errors were measured. Significant differences between mean transfer errors and frequency of clinically acceptable errors (<0.25 mm/1°) were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and χ2 tests, respectively. Results All trays showed comparable accuracy of bracket placement. NextDent exhibited a significantly higher frequency of rotational error within the limit of 1° (P = .01) compared with the PVS tray. Although PVS showed significant differences between the tooth groups in all linear dimensions, Dreve exhibited a significant difference in the buccolingual direction only. All groups showed a similar distribution of directional bias. Conclusions Three-dimensional printed trays achieved comparable results with the PVS trays in terms of bracket positioning accuracy. NextDent appears to be inferior compared with PVS regarding the frequency of clinically acceptable errors, whereas Dreve was found to be equal. The influence of tooth groups on the accuracy of bracket positioning may be reduced by using an appropriate three-dimensional printed transfer tray (Dreve).

scholarly journals Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Grünheid ◽  
Michael S. Lee ◽  
Brent E. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Positional Accuracy ◽  
Directional Bias ◽  
Positioning Errors ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Scan Data ◽  
Bonding Method ◽  
Bracket Position ◽  
Dental Cast ◽  
Transfer Accuracy ◽  
Bracket Positioning

ABSTRACT Objective:  To elicit the magnitude, directional bias, and frequency of bracket positioning errors caused by the transfer of brackets from a dental cast to the patient’s dentition in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods:  A total of 136 brackets were evaluated. The brackets were placed on dental casts and scanned using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) to capture 3-D positioning data. The brackets were then transferred to the patient’s dentition with an indirect bonding method using vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) trays and later scanned using CBCT to capture the final bracket positioning on the teeth. Virtual models were constructed from the two sets of scan data and digitally superimposed utilizing best-fit, surface-based registration. Individual bracket positioning differences were quantified using customized software. One-tailed t tests were used to determine whether bracket positioning was within limits of 0.5 mm in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and vertical dimensions, and 2° for torque, tip, and rotation. Results:  Individual bracket positioning differences were not statistically significant, indicating, in general, final bracket positions within the selected limits. Transfer accuracy was lowest for torque (80.15%) and highest for mesiodistal and buccolingual bracket placement (both 98.53%). There was a modest directional bias toward the buccal and gingival. Conclusion:  Indirect bonding using VPS trays transfers the planned bracket position from the dental cast to the patient’s dentition with generally high positional accuracy.

scholarly journals Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-73
Author(s):  
Ye Niu ◽  
Yunting Zeng ◽  
Zeyu Zhang ◽  
Wanghan Xu ◽  
Liwei Xiao
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Scanning System ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Directional Bias ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Transfer Error ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Transfer Accuracy

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the transfer accuracy of two digital transfer trays, the three-dimensional printed (3D printed) tray and the vacuum-formed tray, in the indirect bonding of labial brackets. Materials and Methods Ten digital dental models were constructed by oral scans using an optical scanning system. 3D printed trays and vacuum-formed trays were obtained through the 3Shape indirect bonding system and rapid prototyping technology (10 in each group). Then labial brackets were transferred to 3D printed models, and the models with final bracket positioning were scanned. Linear (mesiodistal, vertical, buccolingual) and angular (angulation, torque, rotation) transfer errors were measured using GOM Inspect software. The mean transfer errors and prevalence of clinically acceptable errors (linear errors of ≤0.5 mm and angular errors of ≤2°) of two digital trays were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results The 3D printed tray had a lower mean mesiodistal transfer error (P < .01) and a higher prevalence of rotation error within the limit of 2° (P = .03) than did the vacuum-formed tray. Linear errors within 0.5 mm were higher than 90% for both groups, while torque errors within 2° were lowest at 50.9% and 52.9% for the 3D printed tray and vacuum-formed tray, respectively. Both groups had a directional bias toward the occlusal, mesial, and buccal. Conclusions The 3D printed tray generally scored better in terms of transfer accuracy than did the vacuum-formed tray. Both types of trays had better linear control than angular control of brackets.

scholarly journals Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Models for Three-Unit Prostheses Fabricated by Various 3D Printing Technologies

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1550
Author(s):  
Soo-Yeon Yoo ◽  
Seong-Kyun Kim ◽  
Seong-Joo Heo ◽  
Jai-Young Koak ◽  
Joung-Gyu Kim
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Dimensional Accuracy ◽  
3D Analysis ◽  
Digital Light Processing ◽  
Test Models ◽  
Reference File ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Jet Printing ◽  
3D Printed

Previous studies on accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed model focused on full arch measurements at few points. The aim of this study was to examine the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed models which were teeth-prepped for three-unit fixed prostheses, especially at margin and proximal contact areas. The prepped dental model was scanned with a desktop scanner. Using this reference file, test models were fabricated by digital light processing (DLP), Multi-Jet printing (MJP), and stereo-lithography apparatus (SLA) techniques. We calculated the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3D-printed models on 3D planes, and deviations of each measured points at buccolingual and mesiodistal planes. We also analyzed the surface roughness of resin printed models. For overall 3D analysis, MJP showed significantly higher accuracy (trueness) than DLP and SLA techniques; however, there was not any statistically significant difference on precision. For deviations on margins of molar tooth and distance to proximal contact, MJP showed significantly accurate results; however, for a premolar tooth, there was no significant difference between the groups. 3D color maps of printed models showed contraction buccolingually, and surface roughness of the models fabricated by MJP technique was observed as the lowest. The accuracy of the 3D-printed resin models by DLP, MJP, and SLA techniques showed a clinically acceptable range to use as a working model for manufacturing dental prostheses

scholarly journals Transfer accuracy of four different lingual retainer transfer methods using digital orthodontic models: An in vivo comparative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasemin Nur Korkmaz ◽  
Semiha Arslan
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Digital Models ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Angular Measurements ◽  
Clinical Accuracy ◽  
Lingual Retainer ◽  
Transfer Accuracy

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the transfer accuracy of four different lingual retainer (LR) transfer methods using three-dimensional digital models. Materials and Methods Four groups of 17 patients each were created: finger transfer (FT), silicone key transfer (SKT), acrylic resin transfer (ART), and indirect bonding (IDB). At the end of orthodontic treatment, the mandibular dental casts of patients were scanned with the LR wire. Then, intraoral scanning of the mandibular arches was performed after bonding the retainer wires. Linear and angular measurements were made using software on superimposed digital models. Results Horizontal and vertical errors among the teeth were not significantly different among the FT, SKT, and ART groups. However, in the IDB group, linear transfer errors showed significant differences among the different teeth. The tip and rotation errors in the FT group were not significantly different among the teeth. The angular errors were lower in canines than in the incisors. In all measured parameters, the SKT group showed the lowest errors, whereas the FT group had the highest transfer errors in all parameters except vertical. Conclusions Among the transfer methods tested, SKT was determined to have the highest clinical accuracy.

scholarly journals Digital Workflow for Indirect Bonding with 2D Lingual Brackets: A Case Report and Procedure Description

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Rosti ◽  
Maria Francesca Sfondrini ◽  
Davide Bressani ◽  
Marina Consuelo Vitale ◽  
Paola Gandini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Present Report ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Dental Surface ◽  
Lingual Brackets ◽  
Transfer Tray ◽  
True Definition ◽  
Bracket Positioning

Objective. During orthodontic therapy, accuracy in bonding procedures makes it easier to correct tooth alignment by decreasing the need for midcourse corrections by changing bracket positions. Indirect bonding allows the transfer of the appliance components from model casts to patient’s teeth potentially meaning shorter appointments for bracket bonding and rebonding and best comfort during chairside practice. At the same time, there has been a steady increase in requests for invisible lingual orthodontic treatment.Clinical Considerations. Accordingly, the aim of the present report is to illustrate the workflow to realize a complete digital indirect bonding for lingual brackets (2D, Forestadent). The procedure starts with intraoral digital scans, digital 3D model, and virtual bracket positioning, ending with the realization of a CAD-CAM prototyped transfer tray. A 3D intraoral scanner (True Definition, 3M) is used to create digital scans and digital models. A virtual bracket positioning is performed using software (NemoCast, Dentaurum), and a prototyped transfer tray is created by a CAD-CAM device. 2D lingual brackets were positioned inside the tray, so the appliance was bonded to the dental surface using light curing adhesive resin.Conclusions. During orthodontic treatment, CAD/CAM technology could help clinicians. Computer-constructed transfer trays can reduce clinician error and improve the everyday workflow in the office.

scholarly journals Indirect orthodontic bonding - a modified technique for improved efficiency and precision

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln Issamu Nojima ◽  
Adriele Silveira Araújo ◽  
Matheus Alves Júnior
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Modified Technique ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Clinical Phase ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Orthodontic Bonding ◽  
Transfer Tray ◽  
Bracket Positioning ◽  
Bonding Technique

INTRODUCTION: The indirect bonding technique optimizes fixed appliance installation at the orthodontic office, ensuring precise bracket positioning, among other advantages. In this laboratory clinical phase, material and methods employed in creating the transfer tray are decisive to accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This article describes a simple, efficient and reproducible indirect bonding technique that allows the procedure to be carried out successfully. Variables influencing the orthodontic bonding are analyzed and discussed in order to aid professionals wishing to adopt the indirect bonding technique routinely in their clinical practice.

scholarly journals Three-Dimensional Evaluation on Accuracy of Conventional and Milled Gypsum Models and 3D Printed Photopolymer Models

Materials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (21) ◽  
pp. 3499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae-Won Choi ◽  
Jong-Ju Ahn ◽  
Keunbada Son ◽  
Jung-Bo Huh
Keyword(s):  
Reference Model ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Color Difference ◽  
Physical Models ◽  
The Other ◽  
3D Analysis ◽  
Digital Light Processing ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
3D Printed

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental models fabricated by conventional, milling, and three-dimensional (3D) printing methods. A reference model with inlay, single crown, and three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) preparations was prepared. Conventional gypsum models (CON) were manufactured from the conventional method. Digital impressions were obtained by intraoral scanner, which were converted into physical models such as milled gypsum models (MIL), stereolithography (SLA), and digital light processing (DLP) 3D printed photopolymer models (S3P and D3P). Models were extracted as standard triangulated language (STL) data by reference scanner. All STL data were superimposed by 3D analysis software and quantitative and qualitative analysis was performed using root mean square (RMS) values and color difference map. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni’s correction. For full arch, the RMS value of trueness and precision in CON was significantly smaller than in the other groups (p < 0.05/6 = 0.008), and there was no significant difference between S3P and D3P (p > 0.05/6 = 0.008). On the other hand, the RMS value of trueness in CON was significantly smaller than in the other groups for all prepared teeth (p < 0.05/6 = 0.008), and there was no significant difference between MIL and S3P (p > 0.05/6 = 0.008). In conclusion, conventional gypsum models showed better accuracy than digitally milled and 3D printed models.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 2002
Author(s):  
Julia Süpple ◽  
Julius von Glasenapp ◽  
Eva Hofmann ◽  
Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann ◽  
Petra Julia Koch
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Angular Dimension ◽  
3D Printer ◽  
Digital Light Processing ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Bonding Method ◽  
Plaster Models ◽  
Transfer Accuracy ◽  
Transfer Models

Objective: A digital workflow opens up new possibilities for the indirect bonding (IDB) of brackets. We tested if the printing orientation for bracket transfer models on the build platform of a 3D printer influences the accuracy of the following IDB method. We also evaluated the clinical acceptability of the IDB method combining digitally planned and printed transfer models with the conventional fabrication of pressure-molded transfer trays. Materials and Methods: In total, 27 digitally planned bracket transfer models were printed with both 15° and 75° angulation from horizontal plane on the build platform of a digital light processing (DLP) printer. Brackets were temporarily bonded to the transfer models and pressure-molded trays were produced on them. IDB was then performed using the trays on the respective plaster models. The plaster models were scanned with an optical scanner. Digitally planned pre-bonding and scanned post-bonding bracket positions were superimposed with a software and resulted in three linear and three angular deviations per bracket. Results: No statistically significant differences of the transfer accuracy of printed transfer models angulated 15° or 75° on the 3D printer build platform were found. About 97% of the linear and 82% of the angular deviations were within the clinically acceptable range of ±0.2 mm and ±1°, respectively. The highest inaccuracies in the linear dimension occurred in the vertical towards the gingival direction and in the angular dimension in palatal crown torque. Conclusion: For the IDB method used, the printing orientation on the build platform did not have a significant impact on the transfer accuracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document