Search

Background: The correct positioning of brackets in the orthodontic field is a crucial step in orthodontic treatment. Various methods, including both direct and indirect approaches, are currently employed to achieve precise bracket placements. Each method has its own set of advantages and disadvantages in terms of accuracy and treatment duration. This study introduces a review of the previous researchers work in the field of different bracket placements techniques. Results: In comparison with direct bonding (16 mins and 47 secs), computer-aided indirect bonding required much less time in the clinical chair to bond half of a mouth (12 mins and 52 secs). Nevertheless, the overall bonding time (28 mins and 14 secs) for indirect bonding turned out to be longer than for direct bonding in a case when the time that is needed for digital bracket placement was taken into account. The direct bonding approach did not result in immediate debonding, while the indirect bonding approach resulted in the loss of 14 brackets (5.1%). Computer-aided indirect bonding has been shown to be more costly compared to the direct bonding after a cost-minimization analysis. Conclusions: Many papers are reviewed in bracket placement methods showing a strong need for a newly mechanism that has the feature of semi-automatic operations, that facilitates the time for treatment and in the same time reduce the cost and complexity of the treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many techniques have been described in the article to simplify indirect bonding (IDB) procedures. Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) heavy body clear is an alternative transfer tray material that allows light-cured adhesive systems. The clinician could do this modified indirect bonding method as it does not require elaborate laboratory procedures, saving time and being less expensive. This study aimed to measure the bracket placement accuracy with an indirect bonding technique using PVS heavy body clear tray. Three pairs of working models with crowding class 1 were fabricated, then brackets were placed with double-sided tape onto the working models. Trays were made then the brackets were transferred to the patient models. The bracket positions were measured before and after the transfer with ADOBE photoshop. Bracket placement accuracy was determined in three dimensions: vertical, horizontal, and angulation. Bracket positioning differences were not statistically significant, indicating final bracket positions within the selected limits except on the anterior lower left group in vertical and angulation dimensions. Indirect bonding using PVS heavy body clear trays generally accurately transfers the planned bracket position from the working models to the patient models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about a study evaluating the impact of operator clinical experience on the accuracy of bracket placement using guided bonding devices (GBDs) in vitro. Topics include the virtual bracket bonding process, the involvement of operators with varying clinical experience (dental students, orthodontic students, and orthodontists), and the positive correlation found between clinical experience and bonding accuracy, particularly in the buccolingual dimension.

Copyright of Journal of Health Sciences / Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi is the property of Erciyes Universitesi Saglik Bilimleri Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The increasing demand for orthodontic treatments due to the high prevalence of malocclusion has inspired clinicians and material scientists to investigate innovative, more effective, and precise bonding methods with reduced chairside time. This study aimed at comparing the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to enamel using the indirect bonding technique (IDB). Victory Series metal brackets (Metal-OPC, Metal-APC) and Clarity™ Advanced ceramic brackets (Ceramic-OPC) (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) were bonded indirectly to extracted human premolars through the etch-and-rinse technique. A qualitative assessment of the enamel surface using microscopic methods was performed, and the amount of residual adhesive was reported as per the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Moreover, the bracket surface was evaluated with SEM-EDS. The highest SBS mean values were observed in the Ceramic-OPC group (16.33 ± 2.01 MPa), while the lowest ones were obtained with the Metal-OPC group (11.51 ± 1.40 MPa). The differences between the Metal-AOPC vs. Metal-APC groups (p = 0.0002) and the Metal-OPC vs. Ceramic-OPC groups (p = 0.0000) were statistically significant. Although the Ceramic-OPC brackets bonded indirectly to the enamel surface achieved the highest SBS, the enamel damage was significantly higher compared to that of the other groups. Thus, considering the relatively high bond SBS and favourable debonding pattern, Metal-APC brackets bonded indirectly may represent the best choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This prospective clinical study aimed to compare transfer accuracy and immediate loss rate of hard versus soft transfer trays utilizing a CAD/CAM workflow. We performed virtual bracket placement on intraoral scans of adolescent patients to create individual indirect bonding trays. Orthodontic software (Appliance Designer, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to design the trays, which were then produced using 3D printing technology. Patients were randomly assigned to the hard or soft resin groups with a 1:1 allocation. Subgroups were determined based on the Little's Irregularity Index and distributed equally. 552 brackets were bonded onto adolescent patients using 46 CAD/CAM indirect bonding trays. The linear mean transfer errors ranged from –0.011 mm (soft) to –0.162 mm (hard) and angularly –0.255° (hard) and –0.243° (soft). No statistically significant differences were found between the subgroups or soft and hard resin groups. However, the transfer accuracy of molar brackets was significantly lower in the transversal and horizontal directions. All mean transfer errors were within the limits of clinical acceptability. The loss rate was 2.4 % in the hard resin group and 2.3 % in the soft resin group. The Intra Observer Correlation was excellent. CAD/CAM technology for indirect bracket bonding has been proven reliable in a randomized clinical trial. Both hard and soft resin showed a low rate of immediate loss compared to the current literature. Soft resin was more favorable than hard resin in terms of accuracy and usability. However, the indirect bonding of molar brackets is significantly less accurate than incisor brackets. • First clinical study evaluating transfer accuracy of 3D printed indirect orthodontic bonding trays using hard or soft material. • CAD/CAM technology was applied for digital bracket positioning and 3D printing of the transfer trays. • Hard and soft transfer trays have been shown to be accurate in a clinical setting. • Trays made of soft bonding material showed a lower rate of immediate loss and are favorable in clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed indirect bonding trays consisting of hard or soft resin materials produced using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Forty-eight dental casts were 3D printed. Four groups based on frontal crowding were defined and divided into hard- and soft-resin groups. After virtual bracket positioning on the digital models, the transfer trays were 3D printed. To evaluate the accuracy of the procedure, measurements were performed using a digital overlay of the virtual (target) bracket position and a post-bonding scan. The horizontal, transverse, and vertical deviations and angular discrepancies were analyzed. The loss rate was evaluated descriptively as a percentage. A total of 553 brackets were bonded using 24 soft and 24 resilient indirect bonding trays. The mean deviations were of 0.05 mm (transversal), 0.05 mm (horizontal), 0.09 mm (vertical), 0.13° (angulation) in the resilient resin group and of 0.01 mm (transversal), 0.08 mm (horizontal), 0.08 mm (vertical), 0.37° (angular) in the soft resin group. The loss rate was 6.9% and 0.7% in the hard and soft resin groups, respectively. Angular deviations were significantly higher in the soft resin group (P = 0.009), whereas the loss rate was considerably higher in the hard resin group (P < 0.001). The findings indicate that indirect bonding using CAD/CAM is an accurate procedure in the laboratory setting. Soft resins are considered favorable for loss rate and useability. • Accuracy of indirect bonding trays made of hard or soft resin materials was evaluated. • The trays were 3D printed through CAD/CAM technology. • Indirect bonding was performed accurately in the laboratory setting using these trays. • Soft resins are considered favorable for accuracy and useability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To quantify the amount of residual monomer released from orthodontic adhesives used in the indirect bonding technique and compare it to a direct bonding composite resin. Five hundred stainless steel orthodontic brackets were bonded on bovine incisors using five groups of bonding resins: Transbond XT (TXT), Transbond Supreme LV (SLV), Sondhi Rapid-Set (SRS), Transbond IDB (IDB), and Custom I.Q. (CIQ). Liquid samples were gathered on the first, seventh, 21st, and 35th days. Residual monomer release was measured from the liquid samples with a liquid chromatography device. In addition, the amount and shape of the adhesive between the tooth surface and the bracket base was evaluated using obtained electron microscopy images. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance, and a Tukey post-hoc test was applied. Hydroxyethylmethacrylate and bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate monomers were released by all study groups. Urethane-dimethacrylate was released from the TXT, SLV, IDB, and CIQ groups. Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate was released from TXT, SLV, IDB, and SRS groups. The amount of total monomer release was higher in chemically cured adhesives than in light-cured adhesives. Among the chemically cured adhesives, premix adhesives had the highest amount of total monomer release. The light-cured adhesives had less thickness. Light-curing adhesives have significantly less monomer release than chemically polymerized adhesives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate YouTube videos as a source of information for digital indirect bonding techniques. Materials and Methods The keyword "digital indirect bonding" was first searched on YouTube, resulting in 57 recorded videos. Descriptive parameters, including source, target audience, purpose, duration, upload date, number of likes, dislikes, views, and comments, were then evaluated. After this initial assessment, the interaction index and viewing rate were calculated. Video content quality was determined using a 5-point scale that categorized videos as having poor, moderate, or good content quality. This rating was based on the presence and discussion of various topics related to digital indirect bonding, including digital scan, digital bracket placement, transfer tray production from a 3D-printed model or direct production as a 3D-printed tray, clinical application, and advantages and/or disadvantages. The videos were assessed for quality using the global quality scale (GQS) and video information and quality index (VIQI). Statistical evaluation was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, and Pearson correlation analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the rating reliability. Results The majority of the videos were classified as having poor content quality (41.9%), followed by moderate (38.7%) and good (19.4%) content quality. No significant differences were found between the videos in terms of descriptive parameters. However, videos with good content quality had significantly higher GQS and VIQI scores than moderate and poor content videos. The total content showed significant correlations with GQS and VIQI (r=0.780 and r=0.446, respectively; p<0.05). Conclusion In conclusion, while the majority of YouTube videos regarding digital indirect bonding were of poor content quality, those that were of good content quality could be considered a useful source of professional information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:The goal of the current study is to compare the transfer accuracy of two different conventional indirect bonding trays with 3D-printed trays.Methods:Twenty-two patients’ upper dental models were duplicated, scanned and brackets were bonded digitally. Different indirect bonding trays (double vacuum formed, transparent silicone and 3D-printed) were prepared according to three groups. These trays were used for the transfer of the brackets to the patients’ models, then models with brackets were scanned. GOM Inspect software was used for the superimposition of virtual bracket setups and models with brackets. A total of 788 brackets and tubes were analyzed. Transfer accuracies were determined according to the clinical limit of 0.5 mm for linear and 2° for angular measurements.Results:3D-printed trays had significantly lower linear deviation values than other trays for all planes (p

Copyright of Kieferorthopädie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: The goal of the current study is to compare the transfer accuracy of two different conventional indirect bonding trays with 3D-printed trays. Methods: Twenty-two patients' upper dental models were duplicated, scanned and brackets were bonded digitally. Different indirect bonding trays (double vacuum formed, transparent silicone and 3D-printed) were prepared according to three groups. These trays were used for the transfer of the brackets to the patients' models, then models with brackets were scanned. GOM Inspect software was used for the superimposition of virtual bracket setups and models with brackets. A total of 788 brackets and tubes were analyzed. Transfer accuracies were determined according to the clinical limit of 0.5 mm for linear and 2° for angular measurements. Results: 3D-printed trays had significantly lower linear deviation values than other trays for all planes (p<0.05). 3D-printed trays have significantly lower torque and tip deviation values than other groups (p<0.05). Transfer deviations were within the clinically acceptable limit for all transfer trays in horizontal, vertical and transverse planes. Deviation values of the molars were higher than those of the other tooth groups for all trays in the horizontal and vertical planes (p<0.05). Brackets were generally deviated toward the buccal direction in all tray groups. Conclusion: The transfer accuracy of 3D-printed transfer trays was more successful than the double vacuum formed and transparent silicone trays in the indirect bonding technique procedure. Deviations in the molar group were greater than those in the other tooth groups for all transfer trays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: A novel technique, named the MH setup (MH is an abbreviation for the author’s name), was developed to provide an accurate yet simplified method to produce custom‑made brackets without bonding errors. This setup aimed to simplify the treatment and eliminate the finishing phase, so that the orthodontist was able to provide better care with less time and lower costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The setup was performed in two major steps: direct bonding on the cast followed by cutting and setting the teeth into precise positions using brackets. The first set of brackets, bonded directly onto casts, oriented the teeth by setting them ideally into wax rims with full control over first‑, second‑, and third‑order bends. The fully engaged archwire used allowed for precise control over the arch symmetry and form. Setting teeth in wax allowed the clinician to refine the occlusion and correct any minor errors that arose during the initial bonding. The second set of brackets, mounted on the fully engaged archwire, featured custom‑made composite bases. The transfer tray combined the benefits of its soft inner and hard outer layers, providing control over bonding and later ease of peeling from the brackets. RESULTS: The patient was satisfied with a full bonding procedure lasting 15 min that remained simple without unnecessary stress. The clinician was confident that the procedure allowed the precise positioning of brackets and simple bonding for all teeth in the arch, combined with the elimination of the finishing phase. CONCLUSION: The MH technique offered a simple, precise, and inexpensive improvement to the Kesling wax setup. The process allowed for precise bonding without errors or expensive armamentarium. The brackets were transformed into custom‑made prescriptions and could be used with labial or lingual techniques. The method allowed for teeth addition, trimming, or overcorrection according to the clinician’s preferences. The MH setup facilitated visualization of the treatment objectives with precise locations and the opportunity to revise the treatment plan or to discuss further options with the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigating the impact of different pretreatment methods, attachment materials and aging regimens on shear bond strength (SBS) between zirconia and indirectly bonded brackets using CAD/CAM transfer trays. Zirconia substrates were conditioned with silica coated alumina (CoJet) and a) Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus (CF), b) RelyX Ceramic Primer (RXP), c) Futurabond U (FU). Brackets were virtually placed, transfer tray designed (OnyxCeph) and 3D-printed for indirect bonding with a) Transbond LV (TBL), b) Nexus NX3 (NX3), c) Maximum Cure (MC). SBS testing was performed with a universal testing machine after 24 h, 500 thermal cycles, 90 d. Directly bonded brackets to human enamel using Transbond XT Adhesive served as control. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated. Data was analyzed with Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn's post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction, Chi2 test (p < 0.05), and the Weibull modulus was calculated. SBS ranged from 0.1 to 15.5 MPa and were influenced mostly by the attachment material. NX3 generally showed the highest values (9.5–15.8 MPa). Initially RXP/TBL and FU/TBL presented the lowest values (4.3/4.8 MPa). Aging regimens reduced SBS of MC irrespective of pretreatment, after 90 d values ranged from 0.1 to 0.9 MPa. ARI 1 was predominant in all MC groups and FU/NX3, 2 and 3 in the other groups. Weibull moduli ranged between 0.15 (MC/RXP/500 TC) and 6.24 (NX3/RXP/500 TC). MC seems not to be suitable for indirect bonding using CAD/CAM transfer trays to zirconia. NX3 showed similar SBS values compared to the control, TBL lower. • Shear bond strength of different attachment materials combined with different pretreatments and aging regimens was measured. • Nexus NX3 irrespective of the pretreatment showed sufficiently high shear bond strength values. • Transbond LV supreme showed lower values compared to the control. • Maximum Cure did not reach clinical acceptable shear bond strength values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate the failure rates and relevant factors of bonded orthodontic brackets with a computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-based 3D-printed indirect bonding jig system (IDBS) using 2531 natural teeth selected from 99 orthodontic patients. Ceramic self-ligating brackets and metal tubes were used in this study. Proportion analysis was used to calculate the total bracket re-bonding rate and respective proportions of bonding failure and position error. Crossover frequency analysis was used to analyze the total bracket re-bonding, bonding failure, and position error rates in different tooth positions of the maxilla and mandible. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between dependent variables (age, sex, treatment stage, skeletal divergence, and tooth position) and the bracket bonding failure rate. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to test the difference between the maxilla and mandible for each variable. The total bracket re-bonding rate was 22.64%, and the bonding failure rate and position error rates accounted for 15.09% and 7.55%, respectively. The bonding failure rate was higher in the mandibular teeth than in the maxillary teeth (p < 0.05). Anterior teeth had a higher position error rate, and mandibular anterior teeth had a higher bonding failure rate. The accuracy of IDBS was higher in the premolars and molars. Sex, age, and treatment stage were affected by IDBS. Patients with hyperdivergent skeletal patterns had higher rates of bracket bonding failure. The results of this study can provide practical guidelines for placing brackets with 3D-printed IDBS on the entire dentition to ensure the precision and accuracy of their use during orthodontic treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the accuracy and chair time of self-ligating brackets using direct bonding, traditional indirect bonding (IB), and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) IB techniques after orthodontic leveling and alignment., Materials and Methods: Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to three bonding groups (G1 [n = 15], G2 [n = 15], and G3 [n = 15]). Evaluation after the alignment and leveling phases used two parameters of the objective grading system of the American Board of Orthodontics for root parallelism and posterior marginal ridges, assessed using panoramic radiographies (PR I and PR II), a digital model, and a plaster model. Blinding was only applied for outcome assessment. No serious harm was observed except for gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation., Results: Although G3 showed better numerical results, they were not statistically significant in the radiographic or model evaluations (P > .001). Mean chair time was significantly shorter in G3 (1.1 ± 11.8 min) vs. G1 (56.7 ± 7.3 min) and G2 (52.8 ± 8.3 min; P < .001)., Conclusions: The CAD/CAM IB system for self-ligating brackets was as effective as conventional methods, with a shorter chair time., (© 0000 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.)

The aim of the present study was to evaluate in a clinical setting the bracket survival of lingual brackets bonded with the KommonBase system, and to compare it to the survival of a customized lingual bracket system. Two convenience samples of 13 consecutive patients treated with lingual fixed appliances with KommonBase extensions (Group 1) and 14 consecutive patients treated with customized Incognito™ lingual fixed appliances were retrospectively enrolled (Group 2). First time debondings were recorded from the files. Data were submitted to statistical analysis and a Log-rank test was used to compare the Kaplan–Meier survival curves between the two groups. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Lingual brackets bonded with the KommonBase system showed a failure rate of 8%, while Incognito brackets showed a failure rate of 7.1%. The Log-rank test comparing the Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.343). Most debondings occurred during the first 6 months. Upper incisors and canines were less prone to debond than premolars and molars. In conclusion, no difference in bracket survival was observed between the KommonBase system and a customized lingual appliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). Methods: Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021. Selection Criteria: In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method. Results: A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences. Conclusions and implications: The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the transfer accuracy of 3D-printed indirect bonding trays constructed using a fully digital workflow in vivo. Twenty-three consecutive patients had their incisors, canines, and premolars bonded using fully digitally designed and 3D-printed transfer trays. Intraoral scans were taken to capture final bracket positioning on teeth after bonding. Digital models of postbonding scans were superimposed on those of corresponding virtual bracket setups, and bracket positioning differences were quantified. A total of 363 brackets were evaluated. One-tailed t-tests were used to determine whether bracket positioning differences were within the limit of 0.5 mm in mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions, and within 2° for torque, tip, and rotation. Mean bracket positioning differences were 0.10 mm, 0.10 mm, and 0.18 mm for mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival measurements, respectively, with frequencies of bracket positioning within the 0.5-mm limit ranging from 96.4% to 100%. Mean differences were significantly within the acceptable limit for all linear dimensions. Mean differences were 2.55°, 2.01°, and 2.47° for torque, tip, and rotation, respectively, with frequencies within the 2°-limit ranging from 46.0% to 57.0%. Mean differences for all angular dimensions were outside the acceptable limit; however, this may have been due to limitations of scan data. Indirect bonding using 3D-printed trays transfers planned bracket position from the digital setup to the patient's dentition with a high positional accuracy in mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions. Questions remain regarding the transfer accuracy for torque, tip, and rotation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the transfer accuracy of two different three-dimensional printed trays (Dreve FotoDent ITB [Dreve Dentamid, Unna, Germany] and NextDent Ortho ITB [NextDent, Soesterberg, the Netherlands]) to polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) trays for indirect bonding. A total of 10 dental models were constructed for each investigated material. Virtual bracket placement was performed on a scanned dental model using OnyxCeph (OnyxCeph 3D Lab, Chemnitz, Germany). Three-dimensional printed transfer trays using a digital light processing system three-dimensional printer and silicone transfer trays were produced. Bracket positions were scanned after the indirect bonding procedure. Linear and angular transfer errors were measured. Significant differences between mean transfer errors and frequency of clinically acceptable errors (<0.25 mm/1°) were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and χ2 tests, respectively. All trays showed comparable accuracy of bracket placement. NextDent exhibited a significantly higher frequency of rotational error within the limit of 1° (P =.01) compared with the PVS tray. Although PVS showed significant differences between the tooth groups in all linear dimensions, Dreve exhibited a significant difference in the buccolingual direction only. All groups showed a similar distribution of directional bias. Three-dimensional printed trays achieved comparable results with the PVS trays in terms of bracket positioning accuracy. NextDent appears to be inferior compared with PVS regarding the frequency of clinically acceptable errors, whereas Dreve was found to be equal. The influence of tooth groups on the accuracy of bracket positioning may be reduced by using an appropriate three-dimensional printed transfer tray (Dreve). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kieferorthopädie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare the production time for indirect digitally and laboratory-produced orthodontic bonding trays.Methods:Orthodontic study casts were used in this study (n=40). The specimens were equally and randomly divided. In the digitally produced indirect bonding tray (DIBT) group (n=20), the brackets were set virtually using the Orthoanalyzer program (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) to produce an indirect bonding tray that was virtually designed and 3D printed using VarseoWax® Splint material with a Varseo S 3D printer (Bego, Bremen, Germany). In the laboratory-produced indirect bonding tray (LIBT) group, the brackets were adhesively bonded to the study casts in the dental laboratory (Danube Private University, Krems, Austria), and a transfer bonding silicone tray was manufactured.Results:The t-test results showed a significant difference between the passive time during the production of DIBTs (153.8±32.8 min) and LIBTs (7 min). However, the active production time was 13.6±0.8 min for DIBTs and 17.7±1.9 min for LIBTs. Every individual process step in both groups was measured in minutes, and statistical analysis was performed.Conclusion:The total production time, including active working and passive non-working time, was higher for DIBTs than for LIBTs. However, the actual active production time for DIBTs was shorter than that for LIBTs. Within the study limitations, the digital planning and production of indirect orthodontic trays can be considered a time-efficient production method.

Abstract Background In the current study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of indirect bonding by either three-dimensional (3D) printing guides or double-layer guide plates. The results may serve as a clinical reference for bracket placements. Methods In total, 140 teeth were collected and arranged into five pairs of full dentition. The marking points were labeled on the buccal/labial surface of the crown in these orthodontic study models. (1) 3D printing guide: A digital profile was generated using an intraoral scanner. Two types of indirect bonding guide, namely the whole denture type and the single tooth type, were designed with the 3Shape TRIOS® Standard intraoral scanner and fabricated using 3D printing technology. (2) Double-layer guide plate: A working model was obtained by replicating the experimental models, and the double-layer guide plate was then made of the inner layer soft film (1.0 mm thickness) and the outer layer hard film (0.6 mm or 0.8 mm thickness). Brackets were transferred from working models to study models by the indirect bonding trays. We measured and analyzed the distance between marking points and bracket placement. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0 software. The accuracy of indirect bonding between 3D printing guide and double-layer guide plate was compared using paired t-test. Results According to our data, there was a significant difference between the 0.6 mm group and 0.8 mm group when the brackets were indirectly adhered using double-layer guide plates (p = 0.036). However, no statistical significance in bracket positioning accuracy was revealed between two types of 3D printing guide (p = 0.078), as well as between the 3D printing guide group and the 0.6 mm double-layer guide plate group (p = 0.069). Conclusions When applying double-layer guide plates for indirect bonding, the 0.6 mm group is more accurate than the 0.8 mm group. When utilizing 3D printing guides for indirect bonding, whole denture type is more accessible than single tooth type but with no significant difference in accuracy. The accuracy of indirect bonding is comparable when using 3D printing guides (whole denture type) and double-layer guide plates (0.6 mm).

OBJECTIVE: A novel technique, named the MH setup (MH is an abbreviation for the author's name), was developed to provide an accurate yet simplified method to produce custom-made brackets without bonding errors. This setup aimed to simplify the treatment and eliminate the finishing phase, so that the orthodontist was able to provide better care with less time and lower costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The setup was performed in two major steps: direct bonding on the cast followed by cutting and setting the teeth into precise positions using brackets. The first set of brackets, bonded directly onto casts, oriented the teeth by setting them ideally into wax rims with full control over first-, second-, and third-order bends. The fully engaged archwire used allowed for precise control over the arch symmetry and form. Setting teeth in wax allowed the clinician to refine the occlusion and correct any minor errors that arose during the initial bonding. The second set of brackets, mounted on the fully engaged archwire, featured custom-made composite bases. The transfer tray combined the benefits of its soft inner and hard outer layers, providing control over bonding and later ease of peeling from the brackets. RESULTS: The patient was satisfied with a full bonding procedure lasting 15 min that remained simple without unnecessary stress. The clinician was confident that the procedure allowed the precise positioning of brackets and simple bonding for all teeth in the arch, combined with the elimination of the finishing phase. CONCLUSION: The MH technique offered a simple, precise, and inexpensive improvement to the Kesling wax setup. The process allowed for precise bonding without errors or expensive armamentarium. The brackets were transformed into custom-made prescriptions and could be used with labial or lingual techniques. The method allowed for teeth addition, trimming, or overcorrection according to the clinician's preferences. The MH setup facilitated visualization of the treatment objectives with precise locations and the opportunity to revise the treatment plan or to discuss further options with the patient.

This study aimed to evaluate the failure rates and relevant factors of bonded orthodontic brackets with a computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM)-based 3D-printed indirect bonding jig system (IDBS) using 2531 natural teeth selected from 99 orthodontic patients. Ceramic self-ligating brackets and metal tubes were used in this study. Proportion analysis was used to calculate the total bracket re-bonding rate and respective proportions of bonding failure and position error. Crossover frequency analysis was used to analyze the total bracket re-bonding, bonding failure, and position error rates in different tooth positions of the maxilla and mandible. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between dependent variables (age, sex, treatment stage, skeletal divergence, and tooth position) and the bracket bonding failure rate. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to test the difference between the maxilla and mandible for each variable. The total bracket re-bonding rate was 22.64%, and the bonding failure rate and position error rates accounted for 15.09% and 7.55%, respectively. The bonding failure rate was higher in the mandibular teeth than in the maxillary teeth (p < 0.05). Anterior teeth had a higher position error rate, and mandibular anterior teeth had a higher bonding failure rate. The accuracy of IDBS was higher in the premolars and molars. Sex, age, and treatment stage were affected by IDBS. Patients with hyperdivergent skeletal patterns had higher rates of bracket bonding failure. The results of this study can provide practical guidelines for placing brackets with 3D-printed IDBS on the entire dentition to ensure the precision and accuracy of their use during orthodontic treatments.

To compare the transfer accuracy of four different lingual retainer (LR) transfer methods using three-dimensional digital models. Four groups of 17 patients each were created: finger transfer (FT), silicone key transfer (SKT), acrylic resin transfer (ART), and indirect bonding (IDB). At the end of orthodontic treatment, the mandibular dental casts of patients were scanned with the LR wire. Then, intraoral scanning of the mandibular arches was performed after bonding the retainer wires. Linear and angular measurements were made using software on superimposed digital models. Horizontal and vertical errors among the teeth were not significantly different among the FT, SKT, and ART groups. However, in the IDB group, linear transfer errors showed significant differences among the different teeth. The tip and rotation errors in the FT group were not significantly different among the teeth. The angular errors were lower in canines than in the incisors. In all measured parameters, the SKT group showed the lowest errors, whereas the FT group had the highest transfer errors in all parameters except vertical. Among the transfer methods tested, SKT was determined to have the highest clinical accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The direct and indirect bonding techniques are commonly used in orthodontic treatment. The differences of the two techniques deserve evidence-based study. Materials and methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), wherein direct and indirect bonding techniques were used in orthodontic patients were considered. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant articles published up to December 2018. Grey literature was also searched. Two authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using the data collection form. The included trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Results Of the 1557 studies screened, 42 full articles were scrutinized and assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs (247 participants) were finally included for the analyses. The qualitative synthesis showed that no significant difference existed in the accuracy of bracket placement and oral hygiene status between the two bonding techniques. The indirect bonding was found to involve less chairside time but more total working time compared with the direct bonding. The meta-analysis on bond failure rate demonstrated no significant difference between the direct and indirect bonding (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.78–1.64, I2 = 22%, P = 0.50). Consistent results were obtained in the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Weak evidence suggested that the direct and indirect bonding techniques had no significant difference in bracket placement accuracy, oral hygiene status and bond failure rate, for bonding orthodontic brackets. The indirect bonding might require less chairside time but more total working time in comparison with the direct bonding technique. High-quality well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed before a conclusive recommendation could be made.

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of three adhesives with different viscosities and an adhesion promoter on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to human premolars with an indirect bonding system (IDBS). High, medium and low viscosity IDBSs with and without application of the adhesion promoter were used. The mean SBSs of the high and low viscosity IDBSs were significantly higher than that of the medium viscosity IDBS. Application of the adhesion promoter significantly increased the SBSs. The adhesion promoter significantly increased the surface roughness and free-energy of enamel. Irrespective of application or nonapplication of the adhesion promoter, the high and low viscosity IDBSs are effective for bracket bonding. Use of the medium viscosity IDBS in combination with the adhesion promoter is recommended for obtaining a clinically acceptable SBS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the transfer accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed transfer trays and compare them with transfer trays made up of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) for use in indirect bonding. This was a two-arm parallel prospective randomised controlled trial. The trial was undertaken at the outpatient department of a dental college. A total of 30 patients (18 men, 12 women) were randomly allocated to two groups. The inclusion criteria included patients with permanent and fully erupted dentition (age range = 17–24 years), Angles class I malocclusion with crowding <3 mm requiring non-extraction treatment, good oral hygiene and no previous history of orthodontic treatment. Blinding was applicable only for outcome assessment. Indirect bonding was performed by the primary investigator for both the groups. Digital images of the pre-transfer and post-transfer brackets were obtained by means of an intra-oral scanner and compared using software. Superimpositions of pre- and post-transfer images were done to determine the transfer error for linear and angular variables for all tooth types. A total of 600 teeth were bonded, 300 each for both groups. Statistically significant differences were observed in all dimension between the two groups, with 3D-printed trays being more accurate than PVS trays except in the vertical dimension (P < 0.05). The prevalence of clinically unacceptable transfer errors revealed that most of the transfer errors were in the vertical dimensions for 3D-printed trays. 3D-printed trays are more accurate than PVS trays except for transfers in vertical dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To compare the transfer accuracy of two digital transfer trays, the three-dimensional printed (3D printed) tray and the vacuum-formed tray, in the indirect bonding of labial brackets. Ten digital dental models were constructed by oral scans using an optical scanning system. 3D printed trays and vacuum-formed trays were obtained through the 3Shape indirect bonding system and rapid prototyping technology (10 in each group). Then labial brackets were transferred to 3D printed models, and the models with final bracket positioning were scanned. Linear (mesiodistal, vertical, buccolingual) and angular (angulation, torque, rotation) transfer errors were measured using GOM Inspect software. The mean transfer errors and prevalence of clinically acceptable errors (linear errors of ≤0.5 mm and angular errors of ≤2°) of two digital trays were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. The 3D printed tray had a lower mean mesiodistal transfer error (P <.01) and a higher prevalence of rotation error within the limit of 2° (P =.03) than did the vacuum-formed tray. Linear errors within 0.5 mm were higher than 90% for both groups, while torque errors within 2° were lowest at 50.9% and 52.9% for the 3D printed tray and vacuum-formed tray, respectively. Both groups had a directional bias toward the occlusal, mesial, and buccal. The 3D printed tray generally scored better in terms of transfer accuracy than did the vacuum-formed tray. Both types of trays had better linear control than angular control of brackets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the production time for indirect digitally and laboratory-produced orthodontic bonding trays. Methods: Orthodontic study casts were used in this study (n=40). The specimens were equally and randomly divided. In the digitally produced indirect bonding tray (DIBT) group (n=20), the brackets were set virtually using the Orthoanalyzer program (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) to produce an indirect bonding tray that was virtually designed and 3D printed using VarseoWax® Splint material with a Varseo S 3D printer (Bego, Bremen, Germany). In the laboratory-produced indirect bonding tray (LIBT) group, the brackets were adhesively bonded to the study casts in the dental laboratory (Danube Private University, Krems, Austria), and a transfer bonding silicone tray was manufactured. Results: The t-test results showed a significant difference between the passive time during the production of DIBTs (153.8±32.8 min) and LIBTs (7 min). However, the active production time was 13.6±0.8 min for DIBTs and 17.7±1.9 min for LIBTs. Every individual process step in both groups was measured in minutes, and statistical analysis was performed. Conclusion: The total production time, including active working and passive non-working time, was higher for DIBTs than for LIBTs. However, the actual active production time for DIBTs was shorter than that for LIBTs. Within the study limitations, the digital planning and production of indirect orthodontic trays can be considered a time-efficient production method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this report is to present an interdisciplinary treatment involving periodontics, orthodontics, dental implant placement, and prosthodontics with a fully digital dentistry approach. Clinical Considerations: The patient presented with an edentulous ridge on the area of the lower left lateral incisor as well as gingival recession on the adjacent teeth. After performing a digital orthodontic setup and indirect bonding bracket placement, a dental implant placement was carried out before orthodontic treatment in combination with guided bone regeneration (GBR), connective tissue graft (CTG) and periodontal accelerated osteogenic orthodontics (PAOO). In a 6‐month period, orthodontic treatment was fully completed and the dental implant was restored at 8 months. Following one‐and‐a‐half years, significant gingival recession reduction was accomplished and soft tissue augmentation around the dental implant appeared stable with a good functional and esthetic result. Conclusion: The use of the digital POIP concept with a proper diagnosis and careful planning is crucial for reducing treatment time and enhancing precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the current study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of indirect bonding by either three-dimensional (3D) printing guides or double-layer guide plates. The results may serve as a clinical reference for bracket placements. Methods: In total, 140 teeth were collected and arranged into five pairs of full dentition. The marking points were labeled on the buccal/labial surface of the crown in these orthodontic study models. (1) 3D printing guide: A digital profile was generated using an intraoral scanner. Two types of indirect bonding guide, namely the whole denture type and the single tooth type, were designed with the 3Shape TRIOS® Standard intraoral scanner and fabricated using 3D printing technology. (2) Double-layer guide plate: A working model was obtained by replicating the experimental models, and the double-layer guide plate was then made of the inner layer soft film (1.0 mm thickness) and the outer layer hard film (0.6 mm or 0.8 mm thickness). Brackets were transferred from working models to study models by the indirect bonding trays. We measured and analyzed the distance between marking points and bracket placement. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0 software. The accuracy of indirect bonding between 3D printing guide and double-layer guide plate was compared using paired t-test. Results: According to our data, there was a significant difference between the 0.6 mm group and 0.8 mm group when the brackets were indirectly adhered using double-layer guide plates (p = 0.036). However, no statistical significance in bracket positioning accuracy was revealed between two types of 3D printing guide (p = 0.078), as well as between the 3D printing guide group and the 0.6 mm double-layer guide plate group (p = 0.069). Conclusions: When applying double-layer guide plates for indirect bonding, the 0.6 mm group is more accurate than the 0.8 mm group. When utilizing 3D printing guides for indirect bonding, whole denture type is more accessible than single tooth type but with no significant difference in accuracy. The accuracy of indirect bonding is comparable when using 3D printing guides (whole denture type) and double-layer guide plates (0.6 mm). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the reproducibility of digital tray transfer fit on digital indirect bonding by analyzing the differences in bracket positions. Digital indirect bonding was performed by positioning brackets on digital models superimposed by tomography using Ortho Analyzer (3Shape) software. Thirty-three orthodontists performed indirect bonding on prototyped models of the same malocclusion using prototyped transfer trays for two types of brackets (MiniSprint Roth and BioQuick self-ligating). The models with brackets were scanned using an intraoral scanner (Trios, 3Shape). Superimpositions were made between the digital models obtained after indirect bonding and those from the original virtual setup. To analyze the differences in bracket positions, three planes were examined for each bracket: vertical, horizontal, and angulation. Three orthodontists repeated indirect bonding after 15 days, and Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to evaluate inter- and intraevaluator reproducibility and reliability, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the differences between bracket positions, and multivariate ANOVA was used to evaluate the influence of orthodontists' experience on the results. Differences between bracket positions were not statistically significant, except mesial-distal discrepancies in the BioQuick group (P =.016). However, differences were not clinically significant (horizontal varied from 0.04 to 0.13 mm; angulation, 0.45° to 2.03°). There was no significant influence of orthodontist experience and years of clinical practice on bracket positions (P =.314 and P =.158). The reproducibility among orthodontists was confirmed. The reproducibility of digital indirect bonding was confirmed in terms of bracket positions using three-dimensional printed transfer trays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate bracket placement is essential for successful orthodontic treatment. An indirect bracket bonding system (IDBS) has been developed to ensure proper bracket positioning with three-dimensional computer-aided transfer jigs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of bracket positioning by a one-body transfer jig according to the tooth type and presence/absence of a resin base. In total, 506 teeth from 20 orthodontic patients were included in this study. After initial dental models were scanned, virtual setup and bracket positioning procedures were performed with 3D software. Transfer jigs and RP models were fabricated with a 3D printer, and brackets were bonded to the RP model with or without resin base fabrication. The best-fit method of 3D digital superimposition was used to evaluate the lineal and angular accuracy of the actual bracket position compared to a virtual bracket position. Although all the measurements showed significant differences in position, they were clinically acceptable. Regarding the tooth types, premolars and molars showed higher accuracy than anterior teeth. The presence or absence of a resin base did not consistently affect the accuracy. In conclusion, the proper application of IDBS should be performed considering the errors, and resin base fabrication might not be essential in ensuring high-accuracy IDBS.

Objective To provide the experimental basis for the coherence of the indirect bond position by compar⁃ ing the position of the bracket on the digital occlusal model and the position of the transfer to the initial plaster model. Methods Fifteen digitized models were selected for the brackets on the dental denture model, the brackets were trans⁃ ferred to the initial plaster model by indirect bond transfer trays, The line distance between each bracket position in dig⁃ ital dental model and initial plaster model was measured with OrthoRx software. Results The difference between the position of the orthodontic brackets and the position of the initial plaster model was less than 0.20 mm, and the differ⁃ ence was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion The position of the bracket on the digital occlusal model is consistent with that of the original plaster model, which provides a theoretical basis for digital indirect bonding.

Background: The widespread use of CAD/CAM transfer trays warrants evaluation of their accuracy as compared to PVS transfer trays., Objectives: To quantify the accuracy of CAD/CAM and PVS transfer trays, investigating any differences between soft and hard trays CAD/CAM transfer trays., Search Methods: Eight different databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched, without restrictions, up to an end date of February 2023., Selection Criteria: Clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) and in vitro studies reporting average imprecision values for bracket positioning obtained by digital superimpositions of digitally planned and real positions., Data Collection and Analysis: Data eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias (RoB-2 and ROBINS-I) were conducted independently. The data, where possible, were synthesized and quantitatively analysed (meta-analysis of mean differences with 95% confidence intervals). The Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis of the quality of evidence was performed. The t-test for independent samples was used to compare the transfer accuracy of hard and soft CAD/CAM transfer trays., Results: Thirteen studies were synthesized in this systematic review, and then eight studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. As regards linear measurements, there was a mean transfer error of 0.0752 mm (95%CI: 0.0428, 0.1076) for mesiodistal measures, 0.0943 mm (95%CI: 0.0402, 0.1484) for vertical, and 0.0815 mm (95%CI: 0.0469, 0.1160) for buccolingual. As for angular measurements, there was an average transfer error of 1.2279° (95% CI: 0.6011, 1.8548) for inclination, 0.9397° (95%CI: 0.4672, 1.4123) for angulation, and 0.8721° (95%CI: 0.4257, 1.3185) for rotation. CAD/CAM transfer trays were less accurate than polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) transfer trays, with those made of soft material being more accurate than the hard ones, except for vertical dimension. The GRADE quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate., Conclusions and Implications: CAD/CAM transfer trays provide high bracket positioning accuracy, with soft transfer trays offering greater precision than rigid ones. Future randomized prospective trials are required to enhance the strength of the available evidence., Registration: Prospero (CRD42023401278 number)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Copyright of Revista ADM is the property of Asociacion Dental Mexicana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The bonding of orthodontic appliances has progressed from weak, messy, odiferous powder/liquid brackets to sturdy, esthetic appliances bonded with strong, durable adhesives. Orthodontic bonding has experienced more advances in the last ten years than during the previous two and a half decades. Wet field adhesives, enamel protective sealants, atypical enamel adhesives and selfetching primers are a few of the product developments that have made placing appliances more dependable. Orthodontic appliances are bonded with chemical, light and dual cure systems that can be equally successful if their inherent variables are controlled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue d'Orthopédie Dento-Faciale is the property of Parresia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent years, the popularity of indirect bonding increased due to advantages such as reduction of chair time and enhancement of patient comfort. Although the indirect bonding technique has improved over the years, the literature has shown different techniques of bracket placement; furthermore, new materials were specially developed for this technique. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the literature, advantages, disadvantages, and laboratory and clinical stages of the indirect bonding technique.

Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the survival rate of orthodontic brackets using two different bonding techniques. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients requiring fixed orthodontic treatment were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria after obtaining informed consent. Result: Twenty patients were selected with the mean age group of 17.5 ±5 years. A total of 360 brackets were bonded (180 brackets in each bonding technique) and were evaluated for survival rate for six months. The direct bonded bracket failure was only 6 out of 180 sample size and for the indirect bonded group was 8 out of 180. The total breakages were 14 including both the groups. The direct bonding group had 95.6% of survival rate which was lower when compared to 96.7% that of direct bonding group. The two bonding groups did not significantly differ in the survival rate. In the posterior region, most of the breakages were observed (12 nos.). ARI score 1 and 2 was found to be more prevalent in the direct bonding technique whereas in the indirect bonding brackets ARI score was found to be equally distributed amongst the group. However there was no significant difference in the ARI scores between the two bonding groups. Conclusion: The overall bond failure rate was minimal, irrespective of the type of technique used to bond the brackets. Bond failure occurred at the bracket-adhesive interface. There was no statistical difference in the ARI scores between the two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluating the quality of individual positions of the attachments will make it possible to foresee positions that may lead to undesirable orthodontic movements, thereby being of direct benefit to both the professional and patient. The purpose of this study was to list imprecision factors associated with traditional bonding methods, as well as present evidence about the software systems that incorporate digital technology to vestibular bonding. The electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for available data. The following terms were used in the literature search: accuracy, orthodontic brackets, direct bonding, indirect bonding, and virtual orthodontic attachment bonding. Although the technological interface has optimized protocols, especially in planning and laboratory stage, digital systems did not demonstrate to guarantee accuracy. However, virtual orthodontics is now an irrevocable trend, for enabling more efficacy and therapeutic control. It is plausible that soon all orthodontic brackets will be placed digitally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]