Comparison of Bracket Position Accuracy with Different CAD/CAM Indirect Bonding Systems

Paolo  Albertini; Matteo  Tremaroli; Francesca  Cremonini; Mario  Palone

Authors

Paolo Albertini
Matteo Tremaroli
Francesca Cremonini
Mario Palone

Keywords:

Orthodontics, Orthodontic Brackets, Orthodontics, Corrective

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of three different digital bracket positioning systems, comparing vertical, mesiodistal and buccolingual accuracy. Material and Methods: The same case was sent to Orapix, Insignia, and Orthocad systems and the brackets were bonded to the malocclusion models. Damon 3 MX brackets were used with all systems and the brackets were bonded to the models with the same bonding protocol and materials. The comparison of the position of each single bracket was made with digital photography, and ImageJ software was used to find the length in pixels and then convert it to hundredths of a mm for vertical, mesiodistal and buccolingual displacement, compared to the setup. Results: Insignia System reported the average higher vertical displacement (0.28 mm), compared with the other two appliances (0.22-0.23 mm), and showed the lowest average displacement for the mesiodistal and buccolingual positioning (0.14 and 0.07 mm, respectively). However, these slight bracket positioning variations between these bonding systems were not statistically different (p>0.05). Conclusion: The three systems analyzed were shown to be accurate in positioning the brackets, and none of them was statistically better.

References

Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G. Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod 2014; 15(1):53.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x

Arreghini A, Trigila S, Lombardo L, Siciliani G. Objective assessment of compliance with intra- and extraoral removable appliances. Angle Orthod 2017; 87(1):88-95. https://doi.org/10.2319/020616-104.1

Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hägg U, Wong RW, Bendeus M, et al. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32(5):589-95. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp159

Lombardo L, Stefanoni F, Mollica F, Laura A, Scuzzo G, Siciliani G. Three-dimensional finite-element analysis of a central lower incisor under labial and lingual loads. Prog Orthod 2012; 13(2):154-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pio.2011.10.005

Lombardo L, Scuzzo G, Arreghini A, Gorgun O, Ortan YO, Siciliani G. 3D FEM comparison of lingual and labial orthodontics in en masse retraction. Prog Orthod 2014; 15(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0038-9

Perrini F, Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Medori S, Siciliani G. Caries prevention during orthodontic treatment: In-vivo assessment of high-fluoride varnish to prevent white spot lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149(2):238-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.039

Asquith J, Gillgrass T, Mossey P. Three-dimensional imaging of orthodontic models: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29(5):517-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm044

Lopez MA, Andreasi Bassi M, Confalone L, Gaudio RM, Lombardo L, Lauritano D. The influence of conical plus octagonal internal connection on implant survival and success rate: a retrospective study of 66 fixtures. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016; 30(2 Suppl 1):49-54.

Lopez MA, Andreasi Bassi M, Confalone L, Gaudio RM, Lombardo L, Lauritano D. Retrospective study on bone-level and soft-tissue-level cylindrical implants. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016; 30(2 Suppl 1):43-8.

Lopez MA, Andreasi Bassi M, Confalone L, Gaudio RM, Lombardo L, Lauritano D. Clinical outcome of 215 transmucosal implants with a conical connection: a retrospective study after 5-year follow-up. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2016; 30(2 Suppl 1):55-60.

Lombardo L, Gracco A, Zampini F, Stefanoni F, Mollica F. Optimal palatal configuration for miniscrew applications. Angle Orthod 2010; 80(1):145-52. https://doi.org/10.2319/122908-662.1

Gracco A, Luca L, Cozzani M, Siciliani G. Assessment of palatal bone thickness in adults with cone beam computerised tomography. Aust Orthod J 2007; 23(2):109-13.

Di Fazio D, Lombardo L, Gracco A, D'Amico P, Siciliani G. Lip pressure at rest and during function in 2 groups of patients with different occlusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139(1):e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.030

Lombardo L, Carinci F, Martini M, Gemmati D, Nardone M, Siciliani G. Quantitive evaluation of dentin sialoprotein (DSP) using microbeads - a potential early marker of root resorption. Oral Implantol 2016; 9(3):132-42. https://doi.org/10.11138/orl/2016.9.3.132

Lombardo L, Toni G, Stefanoni F, Mollica F, Guarneri MP, Siciliani G. The effect of temperature on the mechanical behavior of nickel-titanium orthodontic initial archwires. Angle Orthod 2013; 83(2):298-305. https://doi.org/10.2319/040612-287.1

Mayhew MJ. Computer-aided bracket placement for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 2005; 39(11):653-60.

Redmond WJ, Redmond MJ, Redmond WR. The OrthoCAD bracket placement solution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125(5):645-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.006

Garino F, Garino GB. Computer-aided interactive indirect bonding. Prog Orthod 2005; 6(2):214-23.

Czolgosz I, Cattaneo PM, Cornelis MA. Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding time, immediate bonding failures, and cost-minimization. A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2021; 43(2):144-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaa045

Pottier T, Brient A, Turpin YL, Chauvel B, Meuric V, Sorel O, 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 Investig 2020; 24(11):3889-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03256-x

Balut N, Klapper L, Sandrik J, Bowman D. Variations in bracket placement in the preadjusted orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102(1):62-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70015-3

Koo BC, Chung CH, Vanarsdall RL. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116(3):346-51.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70248-9

Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, Spary DJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod 2004; 31(2):132-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020427

Armstrong D, Shen G, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. A comparison of accuracy in bracket positioning between two techniques - localizing the centre of the clinical crown and measuring the distance from the incisal edge. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29(5):430-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm037

Silverman E, Cohen M. A report on a major improvement in the indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 1975; 9(5):270-6.

Thomas RG. Indirect bonding: simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod 1979; 13(2):93-106.

McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Bracket placement with the preadjusted appliance. J Clin Orthod 1995; 29(5):302-11.

Kalange JT. Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the advantages. World J Orthod 2004; 5(4):301-7.

Klocke A, Tadic D, Vaziri F, Kahl-Nieke B. Custom base preaging in indirect bonding. Angle Orthod 2004; 74(1):106-11.

White LW. A new and improved indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 1999; 33(1):17-23.

Pisani L, Bonaccorso L, Fastuca R, Spena R, Lombardo L, Caprioglio A. Systematic review for orthodontic and orthopedic treatments for anterior open bite in the mixed dentition. Prog Orthod 2016; 17(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-016-0142-0

Manfredini D, Stellini E, Gracco A, Lombardo L, Nardini LG, Siciliani G. Orthodontics is temporomandibular disorder-neutral. Angle Orthod 2016; 86(4):649-54. https://doi.org/10.2319/051015-318.1

Kim J, Chun YS, Kim M. Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153(2):298-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.017