Three-dimensional evaluation of the transfer accuracy of a bracket jig fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing to the anterior dentition: An in vitro study

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the accuracy of a one-piece bracket jig system fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) by employing three-dimensional (3D) digital superimposition. Methods This in vitro study included 226 anterior teeth selected from 20 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Bracket position errors from each of the 40 arches were analyzed quantitatively via 3D digital superimposition (best-fit algorithm) of the virtual bracket and actual bracket after indirect bonding, after accounting for possible variables that may affect accuracy, such as crowding and presence of the resin base. Results The device could transfer the bracket accurately to the desired position of the patient’s dentition within a clinically acceptable range of ± 0.05 mm and 2.0° for linear and angular measurements, respectively. The average linear measurements ranged from 0.029 to 0.101 mm. Among the angular measurements, rotation values showed the least deviation and ranged from 0.396° to 0.623°. Directional bias was pronounced in the vertical direction, and many brackets were bonded toward the occlusal surface. However, no statistical difference was found for the three angular measurement values (torque, angulation, and rotation) in any of the groups classified according to crowding. When the teeth were moderately crowded, the mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, and rotation measurement values were affected by the presence of the resin base. Conclusions The characteristics of the CAD/CAM one-piece jig system were demonstrated according to the influencing factors, and the transfer accuracy was verified to be within a clinically acceptable level for the indirect bracket bonding of anterior teeth.

WITHDRAWN: Application of medical care four-hand operation mode in digital indirect bonding of palisade guide

“…3D printing technology accurately positioned the brackets by visually accessing the tooth root for virtual placement. Consequently, the total working time of IDB and the number of workers were reduced through automated production [1,14,15] . However, adhesive remains are often left behind when the brackets are glued to the tooth surface of patients with 3D printed guides, causing tooth white spots and bracket loss [16][17][18] .…”

Clinical Study on Efficiency of Using Traditional Direct Bonding or OrthGuide Computer-Aided Indirect Bonding in Orthodontic Patients

“…Thus, based on the data, both treatments seemed to be equally effective, but comparatively, OrthGuide was more efficient because it could significantly reduce the time of treatment, thus leading to less [7] found that computer-assisted CAD/CAM bonding had the shortest treatment time (13:8 ± 3:4 months) compared with noncomputerassisted indirect bonding (16:9 ± 4:1 months) and direct bonding (21:9 ± 5:0 months), which was consistent with our findings. After decades of development, computer-assisted indirect bonding has shown advantages in accuracy and tooth movement, for instance, shorter treatment cycles and higher efficiency [19][20][21]. However, the treatment cycle of this technique depends to some extent on whether the patient is at the peak of growth and development and the type and difficulty of malocclusion.…”

Effect of fence tray matching care on excess adhesive and bracket placement accuracy for orthodontic bonding: an in vitro study

“…Exclusion criteria: (1) caries, (2) implant implantation, (3) poor oral hygiene, (4) dental deformities and quantitative defects, (5) severe tooth displacement hinders the placement of the tray.The sample size was estimated by G*Power (version 3.1.9.4.) according to previous studys [ 4 , 32 , 33 ],with an analysis [90% power (Cohen’s d = 0.5); 5% significance level; Mann-Whitney U tests (two-tailed)]. Therefore, each group should use at least 10 maxillary dental arches to detect the difference between the two methods.…”