The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Three-dimensional evaluation of the transfer accuracy of a bracket jig fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing to the anterior dentition: An in vitro study

  • Park, Jae-Hyun (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Choi, Jin-Young (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Hun (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kim, Su-Jung (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Lee, Kee-Joon (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Nelson, Gerald (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2020.12.24
  • Accepted : 2021.06.07
  • Published : 2021.11.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of a one-piece bracket jig system fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) by employing three-dimensional (3D) digital superimposition. Methods: This in vitro study included 226 anterior teeth selected from 20 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Bracket position errors from each of the 40 arches were analyzed quantitatively via 3D digital superimposition (best-fit algorithm) of the virtual bracket and actual bracket after indirect bonding, after accounting for possible variables that may affect accuracy, such as crowding and presence of the resin base. Results: The device could transfer the bracket accurately to the desired position of the patient's dentition within a clinically acceptable range of ± 0.05 mm and 2.0° for linear and angular measurements, respectively. The average linear measurements ranged from 0.029 to 0.101 mm. Among the angular measurements, rotation values showed the least deviation and ranged from 0.396° to 0.623°. Directional bias was pronounced in the vertical direction, and many brackets were bonded toward the occlusal surface. However, no statistical difference was found for the three angular measurement values (torque, angulation, and rotation) in any of the groups classified according to crowding. When the teeth were moderately crowded, the mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, and rotation measurement values were affected by the presence of the resin base. Conclusions: The characteristics of the CAD/CAM one-piece jig system were demonstrated according to the influencing factors, and the transfer accuracy was verified to be within a clinically acceptable level for the indirect bracket bonding of anterior teeth.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Yonsei University Industry-University Cooperation Foundation own a patent of one-body jig system (patent no. 10-2163625). We want to show our special thanks to Mr. Stefan Foerster General Manager of FORESTADENT Bernhard Forster GmbH, Pforzheim, Germany for supporting 0.022-inch Quicklear brackets for this research and Mr. Seung-Woo Kang, General manager of CENOS Co., Indeokwon, Gyeonggido, Korea for supporting manuscript preparation with virtual set-up, 3D printed Jig fabrication, and 3D-superimposition.

References

  1. Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance. Explained and compared. J Clin Orthod 1976;10:174-95.
  2. Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance. Br J Orthod 1979;6:125-43. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.6.3.125
  3. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978; 74:62-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90046-5
  4. Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1982;82:269-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90461-4
  5. 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;116:346-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70248-9
  6. Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, Spary DJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod 2004;31:132-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020427
  7. Thomas RG. Indirect bonding: simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod 1979;13:93-106.
  8. Kalange JT. Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the advantages. World J Orthod 2004;5:301-7.
  9. Wendl B, Droschl H, Muchitsch P. Indirect bonding--a new transfer method. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:100-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm094
  10. Lee MS. Indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: an evaluation of transfer accuracy and reliability [Master's thesis]. Minnesota: University of Minnesota; 2014.
  11. Castilla AE, Crowe JJ, Moses JR, Wang M, Ferracane JL, Covell DA Jr. Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod 2014;84:607-14. https://doi.org/10.2319/070113-484.1
  12. Seo H. Accuracy of indirect bracket bonding via virtual setup and 3D printing [Master's thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2016.
  13. Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang Z, Xu W, Xiao L. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2021;91:67-73. https://doi.org/10.2319/013120-70.1
  14. Gelin E, Seidel L, Bruwier A, Albert A, Charavet C. Innovative customized CAD/CAM nickel-titanium lingual retainer versus standard stainless-steel lingual retainer: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod 2020;50:373-82. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2020.50.6.373
  15. Koch PJ. Measuring the accuracy of a computeraided design and computer-aided manufacturingbased indirect bonding tray. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.06.018
  16. Xue C, Xu H, Guo Y, Xu L, Dhami Y, Wang H, et al. Accurate bracket placement using a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing-guided bonding device: an in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;157:269-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.03.022
  17. Kwon SI, Lee KJ, inventor; CENOS assignee. Bracket jig system for positioning an orthodontic bracket. Korea patent KR 10-2163625. 2020 Sep 29.
  18. Fillion D. Clinical advantages of the Orapix-straight wire lingual technique. Int Orthod 2010;8:125-51.
  19. Fillion D. Lingual straightwire treatment with the Orapix system. J Clin Orthod 2011;45:488-97; quiz 515.
  20. 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;153:298-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.017
  21. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-X
  22. Park KH, Choi JY, Kim KA, Kim SJ, Chung KR, Kim SH. Critical issues concerning biocreative strategy in contemporary temporary skeletal anchorage device orthodontics: a narrative review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2021;24 Suppl 1:39-47.
  23. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:589-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
  24. Wan Hassan WN, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA. Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3-dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:209-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.019
  25. Hazeveld A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:108-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.05.011
  26. Dietrich CA, Ender A, Baumgartner S, Mehl A. A validation study of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by two technologies. Angle Orthod 2017;87:782-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/01091-727.1
  27. Gyllenhaal KA. Accuracy of two indirect bonding transfer methods: a three-dimensional, in-vivo analysis [Master's thesis]. Minnesota: University of Minnesota; 2015.
  28. 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;24:3889-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03256-x