Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.2017.06.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.2319/042415-279.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 52:34–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.41.4.1149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.oar

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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-10-46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.2013.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/10.2319/01091-727.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.2017.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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/s00056-017-0093-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.2017.06.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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/10.2319/080508-352.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.0000000126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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/S0889540603007819

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Orthodontics of University of Rennes 1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pole Odontologie, Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, F-35000, Rennes, France

    Thomas Pottier, Yann Loïg Turpin, Brice Chauvel & Olivier Sorel

  2. Département Mécanique & Verre, Univ Rennes, IPR UMR 6251, F-35000, Rennes, France

    Antoine Brient

  3. Pole Odontologie, Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, U-1241 Inserm - Inra, F-35000, Rennes, France

    Vincent Meuric

  4. Pole Odontologie, Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, ISCR, CNRS – UMR 6226, F-35000, Rennes, France

    Damien Brezulier

Authors
  1. Thomas Pottier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antoine Brient
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yann Loïg Turpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brice Chauvel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincent Meuric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Olivier Sorel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Damien Brezulier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damien Brezulier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pottier, T., Brient, A., Turpin, Y.L. et al. Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study. Clin Oral Invest 24, 3889–3897 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03256-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03256-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation