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.

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.

Objectives To investigate and compare transfer accuracy between a Polyjet printed indirect bonding (IDB) tray (SureSmile, Dentsply Sirona, Richardson, TX, USA) and a conventional two-layered silicone tray. Materials and Methods Plaster models of 24 patients were digitized with an intraoral scanner, and brackets and tubes were positioned virtually on the provider's homepage. IDB trays were designed over the planned attachments and Polyjet 3D-printed. For the conventional tray, brackets and tubes were bonded in their ideal positions manually before fabricating a two-layered silicone tray. For both trays, attachments were transferred indirectly to corresponding models. A second scan was performed of each bonded model to capture actual attachment positions, which were then compared to initial bracket positions using Geomagic Control (3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). Linear and angular deviations were evaluated for each attachment within a clinically acceptable range of ≤0.2 mm and 1°. A descriptive statistical analysis and a mixed model were executed. Results Both trays showed highest accuracy in the orobuccal direction (99.5% for the 3D-printed tray and 100% for the conventional tray). For the 3D-printed tray, most frequent deviations were found for torque (15.4%) and, for the silicone tray, for rotation (1.9%). A significant difference was observed for angular measurements (P = .004) between the trays. Conclusions Transfer accuracy of Polyjet printed IDB tray is not as high as transfer accuracy of the conventional silicone tray, though both trays show good results and are suitable for clinical application.