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.
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)90264-3
[DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90264-3]
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)90461-4
[DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90461-4]
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)70248-9
[DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70248-9]
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/10.1179/146531204225020427
[DOI: 10.1179/146531204225020427]
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/s2176-94512013000600009
[DOI: 10.1590/s2176-94512013000600009]
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;2
[DOI: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0509]
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/10.2319/070113-484.1
[DOI: 10.2319/070113-484.1]
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 1:119–130
[PMID: 2486752]
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.2017.06.017
[DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.017]
Grünheid T, Lee MS, Larson BE (2016) Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding. Angle Orthod 86:468–474. https://doi.org/10.2319/042415-279.1
[DOI: 10.2319/042415-279.1]
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
Christensen LR (2018) Digital workflows in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 52:34–44
[PMID: 29447129]
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.41.4.1149
[DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149]
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.oar
[DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.088-094.oar]
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-10-46
[DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-46]
Moskowitz EM (2007) Indirect bonding with a thermal cured composite. Semin Orthod 13:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2006.11.009
[DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2006.11.009]
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.2013.05.011
[DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011]
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/10.2319/01091-727.1
[DOI: 10.2319/01091-727.1]
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.2017.05.025
[DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.05.025]
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/s00056-017-0093-1
[DOI: 10.1007/s00056-017-0093-1]
Kravitz ND, Groth C, Shannon T (2018) CAD/CAM software for three-dimensional printing. Print 6
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
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.2017.06.012
[DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.012]
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-x
[DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x]
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/10.2319/080508-352.1
[DOI: 10.2319/080508-352.1]
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.0000000126
[DOI: 10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000126]
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/S0889540603007819
[DOI: 10.1016/S0889540603007819]
