Top

Published in:

01-11-2020 | Silicone | Original Article

Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study

Authors: Thomas Pottier, Antoine Brient, Yann Loïg Turpin, Brice Chauvel, Vincent Meuric, Olivier Sorel, Damien Brezulier

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 11/2020

Abstract

Objectives

Rapid development of digital technologies and 3D printing provide new tools for orthodontic indirect bonding. The purpose of this in vitro study is to evaluate the clinical acceptability of hard CAD/CAM indirect bonding tray.

Material and methods

Ten soft silicone transfer trays and ten hard CAD/CAM trays were produced, and 200 brackets were placed on them. The brackets were then transferred to twenty stereolithography -printed models by indirect bonding. These models were scanned and digitally compared with the reference model by three-dimensional superimpositions (GOM software). The linear and angular measurements were collected and analyzed.

Results

For the CAD/CAM trays, 100% of the mesiodistal, vertical, and transverse measurements of incisors were within the clinically acceptable range of the American Board of Orthodontists (ABO) standards. More specifically, the clinically acceptable linear measurements were between 97 and 100% for silicone trays while they were between 89 and 100% for CAD/CAM trays. The clinically acceptable angular measurements varied between 87 and 100% for the silicone trays and between 79 and 100% for the CAD/CAM trays. Silicone trays were more precise than CAD/CAM trays. The difference was significant for all linear and angular measurements.

Conclusions

While the CAD/CAM group shows clinically acceptable results according to the ABO, silicone remains to be more precise than CAD/CAM for transfer trays and is therefore still the reference.

Clinical relevance

We demonstrate here that the orthodontic indirect bondings, whether they are realized using silicone transfer trays or CAD/CAM trays, are clinically acceptable in terms of the repositioning accuracy of brackets.

Andrews LF (1976) The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod JCO 10:99–114PubMed

Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS (1972) A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 62:236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90264-3CrossRefPubMed

Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM (1982) Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod 82:269–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90461-4CrossRefPubMed

Koo BC, Chung C-H, Vanarsdall RL (1999) Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 116:346–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70248-9CrossRef

Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, Spary DJ (2004) A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod 31:132–137. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020427CrossRefPubMed

Bozelli JV, Bigliazzi R, Barbosa HAM et al (2013) Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment. Dent Press J Orthod 18:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2176-94512013000600009CrossRef

Shpack N, Geron S, Floris I, Davidovitch M, Brosh T, Vardimon AD (2007) Bracket placement in lingual vs labial systems and direct vs indirect bonding. Angle Orthod 77:509–517. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0509:BPILVL]2.0.CO;2CrossRefPubMed

Castilla AE, Crowe JJ, Moses JR, Wang M, Ferracane JL, Covell da Jr (2014) Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod 84:607–614. https://doi.org/10.2319/070113-484.1CrossRefPubMed

Yamamoto K, Toshimitsu A, Mikami T et al (1989) Optical measurement of dental cast profile and application to analysis of three-dimensional tooth movement in orthodontics. Front Med Biol Eng 1:119–130PubMed

10.

Kim J, Chun Y-S, Kim M (2018) Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 153:298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.017CrossRef

11.

Grünheid T, Lee MS, Larson BE (2016) Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding. Angle Orthod 86:468–474. https://doi.org/10.2319/042415-279.1CrossRefPubMed

12.

Schmid J, Brenner D, Recheis W et al (2018) Transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques—an in vitro study with 3D scanned models. Eur J Orthod:40, 549. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy006

13.

Christensen LR (2018) Digital workflows in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 52:34–44PubMed

14.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149CrossRefPubMed

15.

Carvajal-Flórez A, Barbosa-Lis DM, Zapata-Noreña OA, Marín-Velásquez JA, Afanador-Bayona SA (2016) Orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained by application of a finishing protocol. Dent Press J Orthod 21:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.088-094.oarCrossRef

16.

Knösel M, Klang E, Helms H-J, Wiechmann D (2014) Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities. Head Face Med 10:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-10-46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Moskowitz EM (2007) Indirect bonding with a thermal cured composite. Semin Orthod 13:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2006.11.009CrossRef

18.

Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJR, Ren Y (2014) Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 145:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011CrossRef

19.

Dietrich CA, Ender A, Baumgartner S, Mehl A (2017) A validation study of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by two technologies. Angle Orthod 87:782–787. https://doi.org/10.2319/01091-727.1CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kim S-Y, Shin Y-S, Jung H-D, Hwang CJ, Baik HS, Cha JY (2018) Precision and trueness of dental models manufactured with different 3-dimensional printing techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 153:144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025CrossRef

21.

Camardella LT, Vilella OV, van Hezel MM, Breuning KH (2017) Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. J Orofac Orthop 78:394–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0093-1CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kravitz ND, Groth C, Shannon T (2018) CAD/CAM software for three-dimensional printing. Print 6

23.

Short MM, Favero CS, English JD, Kasper FK (2018) Impact of orientation on dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed orthodontic models. 52:13 Cut EDGE 8

24.

Favero CS, English JD, Cozad BE, Wirthlin JO, Short MM, Kasper FK (2017) Effect of print layer height and printer type on the accuracy of 3-dimensional printed orthodontic models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 152:557–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.012CrossRef

25.

Faure J (2012) Biomécanique orthodontique. EDP Santé

26.

Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G (2014) Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod 15:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0053-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Archambault A, Lacoursiere R, Badawi H et al (2010) Torque expression in stainless steel orthodontic brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 80:201–210. https://doi.org/10.2319/080508-352.1CrossRefPubMed

28.

Dalstra M, Eriksen H, Bergamini C, Melsen B (2015) Actual versus theoretical torsional play in conventional and self-ligating bracket systems. J Orthod 42:103–113. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000126CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gioka C, Eliades T (2004) Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial 125:323–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889540603007819CrossRef

Title: Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study
Authors: Thomas Pottier
Antoine Brient
Yann Loïg Turpin
Brice Chauvel
Vincent Meuric
Olivier Sorel
Damien Brezulier
Publication date: 01-11-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Silicone
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03256-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

Epidemiological trends, predictive factors, and projection of tooth loss in Germany 1997–2030: part II. Edentulism in seniors

Correction to: Dry mouth: saliva substitutes which adsorb and modify existing salivary condition films improve oral lubrication

Characterization and effect of nanocomplexed fluoride solutions on the inhibition of enamel demineralization created by a multispecies cariogenic biofilm model

The efficacy of different cleaning protocols for the sealer-contaminated access cavity

The impact of cardiovascular disease and endodontic outcome: a systematic review of longitudinal studies

Effect of treatment with a full-occlusion biofeedback splint on sleep bruxism and TMD pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial