Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study
Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Aboujaoude, Rami [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2022 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2022 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Progress in orthodontics - Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000, 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:23 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:05 ; month:09 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR048017752 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR048017752 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230508034444.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 220905s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR048017752 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Aboujaoude, Rami |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s) 2022 | ||
520 | |a Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Digital bonding |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Direct bonding |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a 3Shape |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a OrthoAnalyzer |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Exocad |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Kmeid, Roland |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Gebrael, Carine |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Amm, Elie |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Progress in orthodontics |d Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 |g 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. |w (DE-627)325298319 |w (DE-600)2035497-6 |x 2196-1042 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:23 |g year:2022 |g number:1 |g day:05 |g month:09 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 23 |j 2022 |e 1 |b 05 |c 09 |
author_variant |
r a ra r k rk c g cg e a ea |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:21961042:2022----::oprsnfhacrcobaktoiinnbtenietndgtlnietodntcnqeite |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2022 |
publishDate |
2022 |
allfields |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 doi (DE-627)SPR048017752 (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Aboujaoude, Rami verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 aut Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. Digital bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 3Shape (dpeaa)DE-He213 OrthoAnalyzer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exocad (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kmeid, Roland aut Gebrael, Carine aut Amm, Elie aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2022 1 05 09 |
spelling |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 doi (DE-627)SPR048017752 (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Aboujaoude, Rami verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 aut Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. Digital bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 3Shape (dpeaa)DE-He213 OrthoAnalyzer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exocad (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kmeid, Roland aut Gebrael, Carine aut Amm, Elie aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2022 1 05 09 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 doi (DE-627)SPR048017752 (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Aboujaoude, Rami verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 aut Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. Digital bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 3Shape (dpeaa)DE-He213 OrthoAnalyzer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exocad (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kmeid, Roland aut Gebrael, Carine aut Amm, Elie aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2022 1 05 09 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 doi (DE-627)SPR048017752 (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Aboujaoude, Rami verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 aut Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. Digital bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 3Shape (dpeaa)DE-He213 OrthoAnalyzer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exocad (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kmeid, Roland aut Gebrael, Carine aut Amm, Elie aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2022 1 05 09 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 doi (DE-627)SPR048017752 (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Aboujaoude, Rami verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 aut Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. Digital bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 3Shape (dpeaa)DE-He213 OrthoAnalyzer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exocad (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kmeid, Roland aut Gebrael, Carine aut Amm, Elie aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 23 2022 1 05 09 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics 23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept. volume:23 year:2022 number:1 day:05 month:09 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Digital bonding Direct bonding 3Shape OrthoAnalyzer Exocad |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
Progress in orthodontics |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Aboujaoude, Rami @@aut@@ Kmeid, Roland @@aut@@ Gebrael, Carine @@aut@@ Amm, Elie @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2022-09-05T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
325298319 |
id |
SPR048017752 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR048017752</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230508034444.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220905s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR048017752</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aboujaoude, Rami</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Digital bonding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Direct bonding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">3Shape</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">OrthoAnalyzer</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exocad</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kmeid, Roland</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gebrael, Carine</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amm, Elie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Progress in orthodontics</subfield><subfield code="d">Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)325298319</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2035497-6</subfield><subfield code="x">2196-1042</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Aboujaoude, Rami |
spellingShingle |
Aboujaoude, Rami misc Digital bonding misc Direct bonding misc 3Shape misc OrthoAnalyzer misc Exocad Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
authorStr |
Aboujaoude, Rami |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)325298319 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
2196-1042 |
topic_title |
Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study Digital bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 Direct bonding (dpeaa)DE-He213 3Shape (dpeaa)DE-He213 OrthoAnalyzer (dpeaa)DE-He213 Exocad (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
misc Digital bonding misc Direct bonding misc 3Shape misc OrthoAnalyzer misc Exocad |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Digital bonding misc Direct bonding misc 3Shape misc OrthoAnalyzer misc Exocad |
topic_browse |
misc Digital bonding misc Direct bonding misc 3Shape misc OrthoAnalyzer misc Exocad |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Progress in orthodontics |
hierarchy_parent_id |
325298319 |
hierarchy_top_title |
Progress in orthodontics |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 |
title |
Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR048017752 (SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e |
title_full |
Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
author_sort |
Aboujaoude, Rami |
journal |
Progress in orthodontics |
journalStr |
Progress in orthodontics |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2022 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Aboujaoude, Rami Kmeid, Roland Gebrael, Carine Amm, Elie |
container_volume |
23 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Aboujaoude, Rami |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 |
normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0002-6747-5903 |
normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903 |
title_sort |
comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
title_auth |
Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
abstract |
Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. © The Author(s) 2022 |
abstractGer |
Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. © The Author(s) 2022 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets. © The Author(s) 2022 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Kmeid, Roland Gebrael, Carine Amm, Elie |
author2Str |
Kmeid, Roland Gebrael, Carine Amm, Elie |
ppnlink |
325298319 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3 |
up_date |
2024-07-03T16:28:13.368Z |
_version_ |
1803575983728492544 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR048017752</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230508034444.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220905s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR048017752</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40510-022-00426-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aboujaoude, Rami</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-6747-5903</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Digital bonding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Direct bonding</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">3Shape</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">OrthoAnalyzer</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exocad</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kmeid, Roland</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gebrael, Carine</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amm, Elie</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Progress in orthodontics</subfield><subfield code="d">Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">23(2022), 1 vom: 05. Sept.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)325298319</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2035497-6</subfield><subfield code="x">2196-1042</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:23</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">23</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.4006186 |