Standard vs computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized self-ligating systems using indirect bonding with both:

Abstract

Objective To compare treatment duration and quality between standard vs computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) customized self-ligating systems using indirect bonding with both. Materials and Methods This comparative trial included 24 patients: 12 treated with a CAD/CAM custom indirect bonding self-ligating system (CAD/CAM) and 12 others treated with an indirect bonding self-ligating standard system (I-STD). For each group, overall orthodontic treatment (OT) time was calculated and included the time needed to place each arch as well as the duration of the alignment and fine-tuning phases. The quality of the final result was analyzed using the American Board of Orthodontics Cast-Radiograph Evaluation. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also evaluated. Results Patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for age, which was slightly lower in the I-SDT group. Overall OT time was increased by 26% in the I-STD group compared with the CAD/CAM group (497 ± 40 days vs 393 ± 55 days, P = 0.0002) due to a shorter fine-tuning phase in the latter group (P<0.01). No difference was found between the groups for alignment phase. Quality of the final result was similar (I-STD, 25.7 ± 6.1; CAD/CAM, 21.6 ± 6.3) among the groups. Finally, no difference was found in the PROMs variables. Conclusions Despite a 26% longer OT time when compared with the CAD/CAM customized bracket system, the indirect bonding self-ligating bracket system demonstrated the same quality of treatment. PROMs demonstrated a high level of acceptance and satisfaction for both techniques.

Efficacy of CAD/CAM Technology in Interventions Implemented in Orthodontics: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials

“…Three CTs were randomized unblinded, controlled, and with parallel design [ 14 – 16 ], one CT was randomized unblinded, controlled, and with split-mouth design [ 13 ], and one CT was quasi-randomized, controlled, with parallel design [ 5 ]. One CT compared 4 groups [ 14 ], 2 CTs compared 3 groups [ 11 , 12 ], and 5 CTs compared 2 groups [ 5 , 13 , 15 – 17 ]. These CTs were published between 2017 and 2022.…”

“…These trials assessed 542 patients with a minimum sample of 24 patients [ 15 ] and a maximum of 174 [ 16 ]. These experiments evaluated different interventions in orthodontics.…”

“…These experiments evaluated different interventions in orthodontics. Four studies compared the computer-aided indirect bonding method versus the traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets [ 5 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]. Three studies compared CAD/CAM retainers with other types of retainers [ 12 , 14 , 17 ], and one CT compared CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires versus stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires group (traditional group) and Lab group with multistranded stainless steel wires [ 11 ].…”

“…Besides, after therapy, the ABO score in both interventions was diminished, without significant differences [ 5 ]. Likewise, an indirect bonding self-ligating standard system showed a similar quality of therapy in comparison with the CAD/CAM customized bracket system, and the final ABO score was similar [ 15 ]. Penning et al [ 16 ] also showed that the treatment quality was equivalent between customized orthodontic systems and noncustomized orthodontic systems.…”

Three-Dimensional Digital Superimposition of Orthodontic Bracket Position by Using a Computer-Aided Transfer Jig System: An Accuracy Analysis

“…In previous studies on the accuracy of CAD/CAM transfer jig systems, variables affecting the accuracy were not considered [ 20 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. In this study, we sought to consider such factors in order to interpret the results in terms of their accuracy.…”