scholarly journals Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets:

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra C. Bachour ◽  
Robert Klabunde ◽  
Thorsten Grünheid
Keyword(s):  
Positional Accuracy ◽  
Acceptable Limit ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Scan Data ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Bracket Position ◽  
Transfer Accuracy ◽  
Bracket Positioning

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the transfer accuracy of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays constructed using a fully digital workflow in vivo. Materials and Methods Twenty-three consecutive patients had their incisors, canines, and premolars bonded using fully digitally designed and 3D-printed transfer trays. Intraoral scans were taken to capture final bracket positioning on teeth after bonding. Digital models of postbonding scans were superimposed on those of corresponding virtual bracket setups, and bracket positioning differences were quantified. A total of 363 brackets were evaluated. One-tailed t-tests were used to determine whether bracket positioning differences were within the limit of 0.5 mm in mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions, and within 2° for torque, tip, and rotation. Results Mean bracket positioning differences were 0.10 mm, 0.10 mm, and 0.18 mm for mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival measurements, respectively, with frequencies of bracket positioning within the 0.5-mm limit ranging from 96.4% to 100%. Mean differences were significantly within the acceptable limit for all linear dimensions. Mean differences were 2.55°, 2.01°, and 2.47° for torque, tip, and rotation, respectively, with frequencies within the 2°-limit ranging from 46.0% to 57.0%. Mean differences for all angular dimensions were outside the acceptable limit; however, this may have been due to limitations of scan data. Conclusions Indirect bonding using 3D-printed trays transfers planned bracket position from the digital setup to the patient's dentition with a high positional accuracy in mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions. Questions remain regarding the transfer accuracy for torque, tip, and rotation.

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 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 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 orthodontic indirect bonding systems: A new wave

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 195-200
Author(s):  
Nasib Balut ◽  
Digant P. Thakkar ◽  
Enrique Gonzalez ◽  
Rodrigo Eluani ◽  
Luis David Silva
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
3D Printers ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Orthodontic Bonding ◽  
Bonding Systems ◽  
Bracket Positioning

Digital technologies are progressing with leaps and bounds and the field of orthodontics is not untouched by it, with innovations like intraoral scanners and 3D printers being easy to own and maintain and increased availability of biocompatible 3D printing materials orthodontist are curious to use this technology to improve orthodontic bracket positioning which would require minimal to no repositioning during the course of treatment. The authors here have tried to outline 2 different methods using CBCT and VTO as guide to decide the bracket positioning digitally and using 3D printed Indirect Bonding trays for orthodontic bonding.

scholarly journals Measurement and Comparison of Bracket Transfer Accuracy With Different Indirect Bonding Techniques: An In Vitro Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422110116
Author(s):  
Sonam Rastogi ◽  
Manish Goyal ◽  
Mukesh Kumar ◽  
Kalpit Shitalkumar Shaha ◽  
Ekta Yadav ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Working Models ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Axis Position ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Transfer Accuracy ◽  
Very High ◽  
Selection Of

Objective: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of 3 indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. Material and Methods: Three IDB techniques were studied using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) putty, vacuum-form (VF), and glue gun (GG). A total of 120 orthodontic stone models were fabricated with die stone, out of which bonding was done on 60 working models and transferred to other 60 patient models. One quadrant was selected for each technique. Digital photography was used to measure the mesiodistal ( X-axis), occlusogingival ( Y-axis), and faciolingual ( Z-axis) position of each bracket on the working and patient models. Results: All the 3 IDB techniques have a very good bracket transfer accuracy. On comparing individual planes, greatest accuracy was seen in GG on X-axis, VF on Y-axis, and VF/PVS on Z-axis. Points A and B were compared for bracket rotation and the mean differences were insignificant indicating that there was no significant amount of rotation in 3 IDB techniques. Conclusions: We can say that all 3 IDB techniques had a very high bracket transfer accuracy. Out of the 3 IDB techniques VF was the most accurate, whereas PVS was the least accurate technique. The selection of technique should be based on tray cost and fabrication time.

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.

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

2020 ◽  
pp. 146531252096857
Author(s):  
Vivek Chaudhary ◽  
Puneet Batra ◽  
Karan Sharma ◽  
Sreevatsan Raghavan ◽  
Vikram Gandhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Vertical Dimension ◽  
Indirect Bonding ◽  
Transfer Error ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Transfer Accuracy

Objectives To assess the transfer accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed transfer trays and compare them with transfer trays made up of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) for use in indirect bonding. Design: This was a two-arm parallel prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was undertaken at the outpatient department of a dental college. Participants: A total of 30 patients (18 men, 12 women) were randomly allocated to two groups. Methods: The inclusion criteria included patients with permanent and fully erupted dentition (age range = 17–24 years), Angles class I malocclusion with crowding <3 mm requiring non-extraction treatment, good oral hygiene and no previous history of orthodontic treatment. Blinding was applicable only for outcome assessment. Indirect bonding was performed by the primary investigator for both the groups. Digital images of the pre-transfer and post-transfer brackets were obtained by means of an intra-oral scanner and compared using software. Superimpositions of pre- and post-transfer images were done to determine the transfer error for linear and angular variables for all tooth types. Results: A total of 600 teeth were bonded, 300 each for both groups. Statistically significant differences were observed in all dimension between the two groups, with 3D-printed trays being more accurate than PVS trays except in the vertical dimension ( P < 0.05). The prevalence of clinically unacceptable transfer errors revealed that most of the transfer errors were in the vertical dimensions for 3D-printed trays. Conclusion: 3D-printed trays are more accurate than PVS trays except for transfers in vertical dimension.

Design, Fabrication, and Accuracy of a Novel Noncovering Lock-Mechanism Bilateral Patient-Specific Drill Guide Template for Nondeformed and Deformed Thoracic Spines

2021 ◽  
pp. 155633162199633
Author(s):  
Mehran Ashouri-Sanjani ◽  
Shima Mohammadi-Moghadam ◽  
Parisa Azimi ◽  
Navid Arjmand
Keyword(s):  
Thoracic Spine ◽  
Sagittal Plane ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Entry Point ◽  
In Vivo Studies ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Plane Angle ◽  
Severe Scoliosis ◽  
3D Printed

Background: Pedicle screw (PS) placement has been widely used in fusion surgeries on the thoracic spine. Achieving cost-effective yet accurate placements through nonradiation techniques remains challenging. Questions/Purposes: Novel noncovering lock-mechanism bilateral vertebra-specific drill guides for PS placement were designed/fabricated, and their accuracy for both nondeformed and deformed thoracic spines was tested. Methods: One nondeformed and 1 severe scoliosis human thoracic spine underwent computed tomographic (CT) scanning, and 2 identical proportions of each were 3-dimensional (3D) printed. Pedicle-specific optimal (no perforation) drilling trajectories were determined on the CT images based on the entry point/orientation/diameter/length of each PS. Vertebra-specific templates were designed and 3D printed, assuring minimal yet firm contacts with the vertebrae through a noncovering lock mechanism. One model of each patient was drilled using the freehand and one using the template guides (96 pedicle drillings). Postoperative CT scans from the models with the inserted PSs were obtained and superimposed on the preoperative planned models to evaluate deviations of the PSs. Results: All templates fitted their corresponding vertebra during the simulated operations. As compared with the freehand approach, PS placement deviations from their preplanned positions were significantly reduced: for the nonscoliosis model, from 2.4 to 0.9 mm for the entry point, 5.0° to 3.3° for the transverse plane angle, 7.1° to 2.2° for the sagittal plane angle, and 8.5° to 4.1° for the 3D angle, improving the success rate from 71.7% to 93.5%. Conclusions: These guides are valuable, as the accurate PS trajectory could be customized preoperatively to match the patients’ unique anatomy. In vivo studies will be required to validate this approach.

scholarly journals Fabrication of 3D-Printed Interpenetrating Hydrogel Scaffolds for Promoting Chondrogenic Differentiation

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 2146
Author(s):  
Jian Guan ◽  
Fu-zhen Yuan ◽  
Zi-mu Mao ◽  
Hai-lin Zhu ◽  
Lin Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Elastic Modulus ◽  
Chondrogenic Differentiation ◽  
Marker Genes ◽  
Self Healing ◽  
Polyethylene Glycol Diacrylate ◽  
3D Microenvironment ◽  
3D Printed

The limited self-healing ability of cartilage necessitates the application of alternative tissue engineering strategies for repairing the damaged tissue and restoring its normal function. Compared to conventional tissue engineering strategies, three-dimensional (3D) printing offers a greater potential for developing tissue-engineered scaffolds. Herein, we prepared a novel photocrosslinked printable cartilage ink comprising of polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), and chondroitin sulfate methacrylate (CSMA). The PEGDA-GelMA-CSMA scaffolds possessed favorable compressive elastic modulus and degradation rate. In vitro experiments showed good adhesion, proliferation, and F-actin and chondrogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) on the scaffolds. When the CSMA concentration was increased, the compressive elastic modulus, GAG production, and expression of F-actin and cartilage-specific genes (COL2, ACAN, SOX9, PRG4) were significantly improved while the osteogenic marker genes of COL1 and ALP were decreased. The findings of the study indicate that the 3D-printed PEGDA-GelMA-CSMA scaffolds possessed not only adequate mechanical strength but also maintained a suitable 3D microenvironment for differentiation, proliferation, and extracellular matrix production of BMSCs, which suggested this customizable 3D-printed PEGDA-GelMA-CSMA scaffold may have great potential for cartilage repair and regeneration in vivo.

scholarly journals Prototype of Augmented Reality Technology for Orthodontic Bracket Positioning: An In Vivo Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 2315
Author(s):  
Yu-Cheng Lo ◽  
Guan-An Chen ◽  
Yin Chun Liu ◽  
Yuan-Hou Chen ◽  
Jui-Ting Hsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Position ◽  
Aided Design ◽  
Clinical Error ◽  
And Control

To improve the accuracy of bracket placement in vivo, a protocol and device were introduced, which consisted of operative procedures for accurate control, a computer-aided design, and an augmented reality–assisted bracket navigation system. The present study evaluated the accuracy of this protocol. Methods: Thirty-one incisor teeth were tested from four participators. The teeth were bonded by novice and expert orthodontists. Compared with the control group by Boone gauge and the experiment group by augmented reality-assisted bracket navigation system, our study used for brackets measurement. To evaluate the accuracy, deviations of positions for bracket placement were measured. Results: The augmented reality-assisted bracket navigation system and control group were used in the same 31 cases. The priority of bonding brackets between control group or experiment group was decided by tossing coins, and then the teeth were debonded and the other technique was used. The medium vertical (incisogingival) position deviation in the control and AR groups by the novice orthodontist was 0.90 ± 0.06 mm and 0.51 ± 0.24 mm, respectively (p < 0.05), and by the expert orthodontist was 0.40 ± 0.29 mm and 0.29 ± 0.08 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). No significant changes in the horizontal position deviation were noted regardless of the orthodontist experience or use of the augmented reality–assisted bracket navigation system. Conclusion: The augmented reality–assisted bracket navigation system increased the accuracy rate by the expert orthodontist in the incisogingival direction and helped the novice orthodontist guide the bracket position within an acceptable clinical error of approximately 0.5 mm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document