RESUMEN

Introduction: The success of orthodontic treatment depends on accurate bracket placement, so researchers are constantly exploring new direct and indirect bonding methods with the help of cutting-edge imaging technologies like cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), which provides full three-dimensional visualization of tissues down to the root of the tooth. Aim: The primary goals of this analysis are to determine the degree of section angulation and adhesive thickness, as well as the accuracy of the vertical and flat section positions. The correlation between total clinical crown height, minor edge to focus of section, and minimum edge to complete curve crown length is one of several possible goals of this investigation (FACC). Materials and Methods: Currently, 10 patients aged 15-30 who needed fixed appliance treatment were enrolled in an in vivo research conducted by the orthodontics department. Cases with and without extractions of the crooked teeth were counted. Full mouth analysis is being used in this investigation. Ten patients were selected at random and placed in either Group A (the study group) or Group B (the control group) (control group). Group A bonds are more indirect, whereas group B bonds are more like "normal" direct bonds. We used a Canon 700D camera, a biocompatible transparent 3D printing resin, and a 3M Gemini MBT.022 in bracket kit for CT scanning and imaging. Brackets are placed by experienced orthodontists in both treatment groups. Result: There is a statistically significant (P 0.05) difference between the indirect and direct bonding group when all five factors are taken into account, with the indirect bonding group demonstrating superiority in terms of accuracy. Conclusion: The results of the current investigation support the premise that there is a clinically significant difference between direct bonding and 3D indirect bonding in terms of bracket placement accuracy.

RESUMEN

Objective: The accuracy of bracket positioning is very important for successful orthodontic treatment. Precisely placed brackets aid in the enhancement of treatment outcomes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of bracket positioning with and without dental loupes and compare this method with bracket positioning achieved using the 3Shape Ortho Analyzer. Methods: A single blinded, split-mouth, randomized and controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics. Three-dimensional (3D) scanned models of the maxillary arches of the subjects were obtained using 3Shape Ortho Analyzer software and virtual setups were prepared. Right and left quadrants of the maxillary arch of the 10 subjects were randomly allocated for manual bonding with loupes or without loupes. The manually bonded maxillary arch was then scanned and 3D models were obtained; these were then compared with bracket positioning achieved with the 3Shape Ortho Analyzer. In the two quadrants, deviations in the position of each bonded bracket was compared in the mesio-gingival, disto-gingival, mesio-occlusal, disto-occlusal, distal and mesial areas and then further compared with the virtual set up. Finally, bracket positioning errors were measured. Results: An independent sample t-test was performed to compare both the area-wise and teeth-wise mean error in bracket positioning with loupes and without loupes which showed no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in bracket positioning with or without loupes. The results of this current study showed that bracket positioning can be performed with loupes or without loupes.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the transfer accuracy of three dimensional-printed trays (3D-printed trays) and to compare the accuracy of this approach with the other methods used for the same purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, Google Scholar and ProQuest (dissertation and theses). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved the assessment of transfer errors measured by the superimposition of the original set-up of brackets and the final positions after transfer. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's tools. RESULTS: Seven studies were included. The pooled estimate of the transfer error in the linear dimensions showed an error of 0.095mm in the mesiodistal direction (95%CI: 0.035, 0.155), 0.114mm in the buccolingual direction (95%CI: 0.067, 0.160) and 0.111mm in the vertical direction (95%CI: -0.033, 0.255). Concerning the angular dimensions, the pooled estimate showed a tipping error of 1.3420 (95%CI: 0.444, 2.240), rotational error of 0.9980 (95%CI: 0.323, 1.672), and torque error of 1.9130 (95%CI: 0.922, 2.903). Thus, the maximum transfer error was in the bucco-lingual and torque directions. 3D-printed trays had better control in mesiodistal and vertical directions than vacuum-formed trays. Polyvinyl siloxane trays were more accurate in the vertical direction than 3D-printed trays. The scarcity of randomized clinical trials is the main risk of bias of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: According to the available evidence, 3D-printed trays have an acceptable transfer accuracy, based on the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO OGS), with maximum linear transfer error in the buccolingual direction and maximum angulation error in the torque. Conducting randomized clinical trials on this topic is highly recommended.

Asunto(s)

Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo , Soportes Ortodóncicos , Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo/métodos , Humanos , Modelos Dentales , Vacio

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Contrary to buccal orthodontics, lingual orthodontics has no reference for vertical bracket positioning on the maxillary central incisor. The aim of this study was to provide a reference point in relation to torque for lingual bracket positioning on the palatal surface curvature (PSC) of the maxillary central incisor. METHODS: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) radiographs of 50 right maxillary central incisors from archives of a dental radiographic center were transferred to Photoshop, where their PSC was traced using pen-tool. The PSC torque angle values of the incisors were calculated in Excel using cubic poly-Bezier curves at 0.5-mm increments and at the inflection point of PSC. Descriptive statistics for the torque angle values of the increments and for the inflection point for the 50 incisors were then calculated. One-way ANOVA test was used to detect systematic differences between the increments, and Tukey test was used post-hoc. RESULTS: For all incisors, increments incisal to inflection point exhibited progressive decrease in torque angle values from the first-calculated increment to inflection point while increments cervical to inflection point exhibited progressive increase from inflection point to last-calculated increment. Mean torque angle values of all the increments and inflection point showed high standard deviations and vast range of values. One-way ANOVA test was highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001) and most pairwise comparisons of the increments using Tukey test were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Inflection point can be used as a reference for bracket positioning on PSC. Cervically oriented shifts in vertical bracket position cause crown labial/root palatal movement cervical to inflection point and crown palatal/root labial movement incisal to it. A scientific mathematical justification for customized bracket torque prescriptions on PSC of maxillary central incisor was also provided.

Asunto(s)

Incisivo/anatomía & histología , Incisivo/diagnóstico por imagen , Maxilar/diagnóstico por imagen , Soportes Ortodóncicos , Técnicas de Movimiento Dental/instrumentación , Adolescente , Adulto , Análisis de Varianza , Puntos Anatómicos de Referencia , Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico , Humanos , Técnicas de Movimiento Dental/métodos , Torque , Adulto Joven

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The objective of this investigation was to develop equations to describe the geometric relations among "targeted incisor inclinations" (tU1, tL1) accommodating different cephalometric norms (Ricketts, Bergen, etc.) with the "expected inclinations" (eU1, eL1), as they can be generated by bracket torque values according to Andrews, Roth, Ricketts, and MBT. METHODS: In its key parts, the present study is a theoretical work in which structural relationships are described using standard mathematical and geometric methodologies. RESULTS: The "targeted norm-inclinations" (tU1, tL1) were calculated relative to a single reference plane (BOP according to Downs), thus, allowing for a direct comparison of different cephalometric values. Referring to the "expected inclinations" (eU1, eL1), it was found that in addition to bracket torque (BT) morphological and structural parameters also have to be taken into account. These are the "torque coordination angle" (TCA) representing the variation in dental morphology and, the correction angles between BOP and the upper (uOP) (α1) or the lower (lOP) occlusal plane (ß1). Moreover, the angles α2 between an upper (uBPP) and ß2 between a lower bracket positioning plane (lBPP) and the occlusal planes (uOP, lOP) have to be considered. As a consequence, suitable equations were developed (eU1(BOP) = 90°â€¯- BT(U1) - TCA(U1) + α1 - α2, and eL1(BOP) = 90°â€¯- BT(L1) - TCA(L1) + ß1 - ß2), allowing the calculation of expected torque-dependent inclinations (eU1, eL1) and representing the prerequisite for a comparison with the cephalometric targeted values (tU1, tL1). CONCLUSIONS: By developing suitable equations, it became possible to name and quantify those parameters that are responsible for incisor inclinations and enable a comparison with targeted cephalometric values.

Asunto(s)

Incisivo/anatomía & histología , Soportes Ortodóncicos , Técnicas de Movimiento Dental/métodos , Técnicas de Movimiento Dental/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Cefalometría , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Oclusión Dental , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Torque

RESUMEN

Objective@#To provide the experimental basis for the coherence of the indirect bond position by comparing 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 transferred to the initial plaster model by indirect bond transfer trays, The line distance between each bracket position in digital 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 difference 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.

RESUMEN

An unusual case of altered passive eruption with gingival hyperpigmentation and a Class I malocclusion in a 12-year-old girl having no previous history of medication is presented. The patient reported with spacing in the upper arch, moderate crowding in the lower arch, anterior crossbite and excessive gingival tissue on the labial surfaces of teeth in both the arches. The inadequate crown lengths made placement of the orthodontic brackets difficult. Preadjusted orthodontic brackets have a very precise placement protocol which can affect tooth movement in all 3 planes of space if violated. The periodontal condition was diagnosed as altered passive eruption Type IA. Interdisciplinary treatment protocols including periodontal surgical and orthodontic procedures were used. The periodontal surgical procedures were carried out prior to orthodontic therapy and the results obtained were satisfactory. It is suggested that orthodontists should be aware of conditions like altered passive eruption and modalities of management. In most instances, orthodontic therapy is not hindered.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Diverse gauges have been used to measure and determine bracket height for correct bracket positioning. The aim of the present study was to determine and compare bracket positioning accuracy by using height bracket positioning gauge (HBPG) and Boone gauge (BG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen sets of stone models were prepared from one patient. One set was employed to de-termine the ideal position of brackets, and the remaining nine pairs of sets for bracket placement by nine clinicians usingHBPG and BG. Teeth were then sectioned from the stone models and placed inside acrylic molds; photographs were takenand imported to a computer. In two groups, the position of each bonded bracket was compared in three aspects of vertical, mesiodistal and angular with the ideal position of every bracket. Finally, bracket positioning errors were measured. RESULTS: Mann-Whitney U test demonstrated significant differences in the means ofvertical error between the HBPG group and BG groups (P<0.001), while there were no significant differences between mesiodistal and angular errors. Facto-rial ANOVA revealed that gauge and tooth type, and the position of tooth on the right and left side of the mouth play a ma-jor role in the rate of vertical error. CONCLUSION: Vertical accuracy of bracket positioning by the use of HBPG is more than that by BG. However, there is no difference between two gauges in relation to the mesiodistal and angular errors.