3D printed indirect bonding trays: transfer accuracy of bar vs shell design in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

Gulden Karabiber, Merve Nur Eglenen
{"title":"3D printed indirect bonding trays: transfer accuracy of bar vs shell design in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Gulden Karabiber, Merve Nur Eglenen","doi":"10.2319/020524-90.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the transfer accuracy of two different indirect bonding (IDB) trays.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Digital IDB was performed on a total of 30 patients using one of two designs: shell and bar trays, with 15 patients in each group. Trays were designed with the Appliance Designer software (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). Angular (torque, tip, angulation) and linear (mesiodistal, buccolingual, occlusogingival) differences were compared between the bonded intraoral scans taken immediately after IDB and the virtually bracketed model prepared in Ortho Analyzer software (3Shape A/S) using open source GOM inspect software (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences found between the bar and shell groups. Within the groups, significant tip differences were found between the incisors, canines, and premolars in both groups (P = .0001). Additionally, a statistically significant torque difference was found in the canines and incisors in the shell group. The percentage of values that deviated from the clinical acceptance limit was relatively higher in the bar group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although there was no statistical difference between groups, the shell tray showed better results according to clinical acceptability limits. This study is important as it is the first clinical study to compare directly printed transfer trays with different designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":"648-656"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11493419/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/020524-90.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the transfer accuracy of two different indirect bonding (IDB) trays.

Materials and methods: Digital IDB was performed on a total of 30 patients using one of two designs: shell and bar trays, with 15 patients in each group. Trays were designed with the Appliance Designer software (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). Angular (torque, tip, angulation) and linear (mesiodistal, buccolingual, occlusogingival) differences were compared between the bonded intraoral scans taken immediately after IDB and the virtually bracketed model prepared in Ortho Analyzer software (3Shape A/S) using open source GOM inspect software (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany).

Results: There were no significant differences found between the bar and shell groups. Within the groups, significant tip differences were found between the incisors, canines, and premolars in both groups (P = .0001). Additionally, a statistically significant torque difference was found in the canines and incisors in the shell group. The percentage of values that deviated from the clinical acceptance limit was relatively higher in the bar group.

Conclusions: Although there was no statistical difference between groups, the shell tray showed better results according to clinical acceptability limits. This study is important as it is the first clinical study to compare directly printed transfer trays with different designs.

三维打印间接粘接托盘:前瞻性随机临床试验中棒状与壳状设计的转移准确性。
目的:比较两种不同的间接粘接托盘的转移准确性:比较两种不同间接粘接(IDB)托盘的转移准确性:共对 30 名患者进行了数字间接粘接,使用两种设计之一:壳式和杆式托盘,每组 15 名患者。托盘是用 Appliance Designer 软件(3Shape A/S,丹麦哥本哈根)设计的。使用开源的 GOM inspect 软件(GOM GmbH,德国布伦瑞克)比较了 IDB 后立即拍摄的粘结口内扫描图像与 Ortho Analyzer 软件(3Shape A/S)制作的虚拟托槽模型之间的角度(扭矩、尖端、角度)和线性(牙周中、颊舌侧、咬合龈)差异:结果:棒状组和壳状组之间没有发现明显差异。在组内,两组的门牙、犬齿和前臼齿之间存在明显的齿尖差异(P = .0001)。此外,在贝壳组中,犬齿和门齿的扭矩差异也具有统计学意义。杠组偏离临床接受极限值的百分比相对较高:虽然各组之间没有统计学差异,但根据临床可接受性限值,壳托盘显示出更好的效果。这项研究非常重要,因为它是第一项比较不同设计的直接印刷转移托盘的临床研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信