Effect of heat treatment and nitrogen atmosphere during post-curing on mechanical properties of 3D-printed orthodontic aligners.

OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D)-printed aligners present a promising orthodontic treatment modality, whose clinical success largely depends on the material's mechanical properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties of resin-made 3D-printed aligners and assess the effect of two different post-curing conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty dumbbell-shaped specimens and 40 resin aligners were 3D-printed and divided into four equal groups according to post-curing conditions: presence or absence of oxygen during post-curing and water heat treatment at 85°C for 15 s or none. Samples from the central incisor of the aligner (n = 5/group) were studied by Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). The dumbbell-shaped specimens were loaded up to fracture under tensile mode and yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, elastic and plastic strain were calculated. The first mandibular molar area from 3D-printed aligners (n = 10/group) was cut and embedded in acrylic resin and then underwent metallographic grinding and polishing followed by instrumented indentation testing to determine the following mechanical properties: Martens hardness, indentation modulus, elastic index, and indentation relaxation. After descriptive statistics, differences according to each post-curing protocol, as well as their combination, were analyzed with linear regression modeling at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: All groups showed identical ATR-FTIR spectra, while no statistically significant effects were seen for either post-curing protocol (N2 presence and heat treatment) or their combination (P > .05 in all instances). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical properties of 3D-printed resin aligners were not considerably affected either by post-curing in N2 atmosphere or heat treatment.

Fracture toughness and hardness of in-office, 3D-printed ceramic brackets.

OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is a promising manufacturing technique for fabricating ceramic brackets. The aim of this research was to assess fundamental mechanical properties of in-office, 3D printed ceramic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D-printed zirconia brackets, commercially available polycrystalline alumina ceramic brackets (Clarity, 3 M St. Paul, MN) and 3D-printed customized polycrystalline alumina ceramic ones (LightForce™, Burlington, Massachusetts) were included in this study. Seven 3D printed zirconia brackets and equal number of ceramic ones from each manufacturer underwent metallographic grinding and polishing followed by Vickers indentation testing. Hardness (HV) and fracture toughness (K1c) were estimated by measuring impression average diagonal length and crack length, respectively. After descriptive statistics calculation, group differences were analysed with 1 Way ANOVA and Holm Sidak post hoc multiple comparison test at significance level α = .05. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found among the materials tested with respect to hardness and fracture toughness. The 3D-printed zirconia proved to be less hard (1261 ± 39 vs 2000 ± 49 vs 1840 ± 38) but more resistant to crack propagation (K1c = 6.62 ± 0.61 vs 5.30 ± 0.48 vs 4.44 ± 0.30 MPa m1/2 ) than the alumina brackets (Clarity and Light Force respectivelty). Significant differences were observed between the 3D printed and the commercially available polycrystalline alumina ceramic brackets but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Under the limitations of this study, the 3D printed zirconia bracket tested is characterized by mechanical properties associated with advantageous orthodontic fixed appliances traits regarding clinically relevant parameters.

Leaching from a 3D-printed aligner resin.

AIM: To quantitatively assess the degree of conversion and the water-leaching targeted compound from 3D-printed aligners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3D-printed aligners were made of photopolymerized resin (Tera Harz TC85A). The molecular structure and degree of conversion of the set resin were investigated by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy (n = 5). The aligners (n = 10) were immersed in double distilled water for 1 week at 37°C and the eluents were analysed using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry methods (LC-ESI-MS/MS for urethane dimethacrylate [UDMA] and LC-APCI-MS/MS for bispenol-A [BPA]). RESULTS: The resin was composed of aliphatic vinyl ester-urethane monomers, with acrylate and/or methacrylate functionalization. The degree of conversion was estimated as to 83%. There was no detection of BPA in any of the assessed samples (0.25 µg/l). Quantifiable amounts of UDMA were detected in all the exposed samples, ranging from 29 to 96 µg/l. CONCLUSIONS: Although efficiently polymerized and BPA free, the great variability in the amount of UDMA monomer leached from the examined samples may raise concerns on potential health hazards after repeated intraoral exposure, which is indicated for this class of materials.

In vivo aging-induced surface roughness alterations of Invisalign® and 3D-printed aligners.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the surface roughness of in-house 3D-printed orthodontic aligners compared with Invisalign® appliances, both retrieved as well as in the 'as-received' control status. DESIGN: An in vitro study following intra-oral material aging. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve clinically used Invisalign® appliances and the same number of 3D-printed aligners, without involvement of attachments, were obtained from a respective number of patients. A similar number of 'as-received' aligners, of each material, were used as control (CON) groups. METHOD: Four groups of materials were examined: A = Invisalign® CON; B = Invisalign® used; C = 3D-printed CON; and D = 3D-printed used. Optical profilometry was employed to examine the following surface roughness parameters: amplitude parameters Sa, Sq and Sz and functional parameters Sc and Sv. Descriptive statistics and quantile regression modeling were conducted, and the level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: Intra-oral exposure of 3D-printed aligners was significantly associated with increase in all tested parameters (P < 0.001 at all occasions). Significant differences were detected in the retrieved 3D-printed aligners compared with Invisalign® retrieved, with the exception of Sz. The respective effect sizes (median differences) were as follows: Sa: 169 nm, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 89-248, P < 0.001; Sq: 315 nm, 95% CI = 152-477, P < 0.001; Sc: 233 nm3/nm2, 95% CI = 131-335, P < 0.001; and Sv: 43 nm3/nm2, 95% CI = 17-68, P = 0.002. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, we concluded that surface roughness differences existed between 3D-printed aligners and Invisalign® in the retrieved status, as well as between the control and retrieved 3D-printed groups.

Comparative analysis of mechanical properties of orthodontic aligners produced by different contemporary 3D printers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of orthodontic aligners among different commercially available 3D printing devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five 3D printers (Ka:rv LP 550, Swinwon; "KAR"), (L120, Dazz 3D; "L12"), (MiiCraft 125, Miicraft Jena; "MIC"), (Slash 2, Uniz; "SLS") and (Pro 95, SprintRay; "PRO") were used to prepare orthodontic aligners with dental resin (Tera Harz TC-85DAW, Graphy). The central incisors of each aligner were cut, prepared and evaluated in terms of Martens-Hardness (HM), indentation-modulus (EIT ) and elastic-index (ηIT ) as per ISO14577-1:2002. Force-indentation curves were recorded and differences among printers were checked with generalized linear regressions (alpha=5%). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were seen for all mechanical properties (P < .05), which were in descending order: HM (N/mm2 ) as median (Interquartile Range [IQR]): SLS 108.5 (106.0-112.0), L12 103.0 (102.0-107.0), KAR 101.5 (97.5-103.0), MIC 100.0 (97.5-101.5) and PRO 94.0 (93.0-96.0); EIT (MPa) as mean (Standard Deviation [SD]): SLS 2696.3 (124.7), L12 2627.8 (73.5), MIC 2566.2 (125.1), KAR 2565.0 (130.2) and PRO 2491.2 (53.3); and ηIT (%) as median (IQR): SLS 32.8 (32.3-33.1), L12 31.6 (30.8-32.3), KAR 31.3 (30.9-31.9), MIC 30.5 (29.9-31.2) and PRO 29.5 (29.1-30.0). Additionally, significant differences existed between liquid crystal display (LCD) and digital light processing (DLP) printers for HM (P < .001), EIT (P = .002) and ηIT (P < .001), with aligners from the former having higher values than aligners from the latter printer. CONCLUSION: Under the limitations of this study, it may be concluded that the mechanical properties of 3D-printed orthodontic aligners are dependent on the 3D printer used, and thus, differences in their clinical efficacy are anticipated.

Cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of a novel 3-dimensional printed orthodontic aligner.

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontic aligners printed with in-office 3-dimensional (3D) procedures have been described, but no data on their biocompatibility exist. This study investigates the cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of a 3D-printed orthodontic aligner by assessing its biological and behavioral effects. METHODS: Ten sets of 1 type of aligner were immersed in sterile deionized water for 14 days, and the cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of released factors were assessed via MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assays on human gingival fibroblasts and the estrogen-sensitive MCF-7 and the estrogen-insensitive MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell lines. 17ß-Estradiol and bisphenol-A were used as positive controls. The statistical analysis of data was performed with generalized linear models at a 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: No signs of cytotoxicity were seen for the aligner samples for concentrations (v/v) of 20% (P = 0.32), 10% (P = 0.79), or 5% (P = 0.76). The antioxidant activity expressed as the capacity to reduce intracellular levels of reactive oxygen species was not affected in the aligner samples (P = 0.08). No significant estrogenicity was induced by the aligner samples compared with eluents from the negative control for both MCF-7 (P = 0.65) and MDA-MB-231 (P = 0.78). As expected, 17ß-Estradiol and bisphenol-A stimulated MCF-7 cell proliferation, whereas no effect was observed on MDA-MB-231 cells. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, if any factors were released during the 14-day aging of 3D-printed aligners in water, these were not found to be cytotoxic for human gingival fibroblasts and did not affect their intracellular reactive oxygen species levels. Moreover, no estrogenic effects of these putative eluates were observed based on an E-screen assay.

In-house 3D-printed aligners: effect of in vivo ageing on mechanical properties.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate alterations in the mechanical properties of in-house three-dimensional (3D) printed orthodontic aligners after intraoral ageing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen 3D-printed aligners (TC-85DAC resin, Graphy, Seoul, Korea) were used for the purpose of the study, which were divided into 10 control (not used) aligners and 6 materials retrieved from 4 patients after 1-week service (retrieved group). Samples from the control group were analysed by attenuated total reflectance-Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. Samples from control/retrieved groups were embedded resin and subjected to instrumented indentation testing (IIT) to record force-indentation depth curves, calculating the following (as per ISO 14577-1, 2002 standard): Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), and elastic index (ηIT), and the indentation relaxation index (RIT). Differences between control and retrieved 3D-printed aligners were checked with Mann-Whitney/t-tests at an alpha = 5%. RESULTS: ATR-FTIR analysis showed that aligners were made of a vinyl ester-urethane material. The results of the IIT testing were: HM (control: median 91.5 N/mm2, interquartile range [IQR] 88.0-93.0/as-retrieved: median 90.5 N/mm2, IQR 89.0-93.0); EIT (control, mean 2616.3 MPa, standard deviation [SD] 107.0 MPa/retrieved, mean 2673.2 MPa, SD 149.4 MPa); ηIT (control: median 28.6%, IQR 28.2-30.9%/as-retrieved: median 29.0%, IQR 28.7-29.2%); and RIT (control: median 45.5%, IQR 43.0-47.0%/as-retrieved: median 45.1%, IQR 45.0-45.3%). No differences between as-retrieved and control aligners were found for any of the mechanical properties tested (P > 0.05 in all instances). CONCLUSION: The mechanical properties of the in-house 3D-printed aligners tested were not affected after 1 week in service period.

Effect of printing orientation on mechanical properties of 3D-printed orthodontic aligners.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in the fundamental mechanical properties of resin-made three-dimensional (3D) printed orthodontic aligners according to the printing orientation. METHODS: Twenty resin 3D-printed dumbbell-shaped specimens and 20 orthodontic aligners were fabricated and postcured in nitrogen. Half of the specimens and aligners were built in horizontal (H), the other half in vertical (V) directions. The dumbbell-shaped specimens were loaded in a tensile testing machine, while parts of the aligners were embedded in acrylic resin, ground, polished, and then underwent instrumented indentation testing (IIT). Mechanical properties that were assessed included the yield strength (YS), breaking strength (BS), plastic strain (ε), Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), elastic index (ηIT), and indentation relaxation (RIT). Data were analyzed statistically with independent t­tests or Mann-Whitney tests at α = 5%. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between specimens or aligners printed either in a horizontal or a vertical direction (P > 0.05 in all instances). Overall, the 3D-printed aligners showed acceptable mechanical propertied in terms of YS (mean 19.2 MPa; standard deviation [SD] 1.7 MPa), BS (mean 19.6 MPa; SD 1.2 MPa), ε (mean 77%; SD 11%), HM (median 89.0 N/mm2; interquartile range [IQR] 84.5-90.0 NN/m2), EIT (median 2670.5 MPa; IQR 2645.0-2726.0 MPa), ηIT (median 27.5%; IQR 25.9-28.1%), and RIT (mean 65.1%; SD 3.5%). CONCLUSION: Printing direction seemed to have no effect on the mechanical properties of 3D-printed resin aligners, which are promising for orthodontic use.

In-office Customized Brackets: Aligning with the Future.

Digital technology introduced many innovations in the field of dentistry and orthodontics in the last years. The most important advancement was the ability to digitize the oral cavity using intraoral scanners. CAD software have been around for decades, but only in the last twenty years started showing up in the field of dentistry and orthodontics. 3D printers are not new in the field of manufacturing. Nevertheless, their inclusion in the orthodontist armamentarium was made possible only the last few years, while new printing materials have been also invented, allowing the manufacturing of many appliances previously made using traditional laboratory procedures. Orthodontic treatment is mainly based on the use of fixed appliances. The vast majority of orthodontists use commercial straight-wire brackets while customized brackets are preferred mostly for lingual orthodontic treatment. New CAD software called Ubrackets allows the in-office designing and printing of customized brackets using hybrid ceramic crown resin or zirconia slurry. Some scientific studies have been conducted to investigate the bracket printing outcome in terms of mechanical properties. More studies must be performed to allow the inclusion of in-office designing and printing of customized brackets in the orthodontic armamentarium.

Directly Printed Aligner: Aligning with the Future.

Orthodontics stands on a junction where traditional analog appliance manufacturing slowly but steadily changes to a digital one with the use of 3D technology. The main cause of this shift was the invention and use of computers. The use of computers, computer-aided design (CAD) software, computerized machines, and newly invented materials allowed this change to occur in a relatively short time in dentistry and orthodontics. The trigger for this transformation is the ability to digitally scan the oral cavity. CAD software and 3D printers already existed. It took a few years to include this technology in orthodontics and continuously apply it in the orthodontic office. Orthodontic treatment is mainly based on the use of fixed appliances, while in the last years, thermoformed aligners have been introduced as an alternative whenever a more invisible treatment modality is preferred. Clear aligner treatment is performed using thermoformed aligner. A new aligner resin has been recently invented to allow direct aligner printing. Directly printed aligner possess many advantages compared to thermoformed one. Research has been initiated to investigate all the aspects of the workflow and aligner printing outcome. More studies must be performed to look into the various aspects of directly printed aligners.

From biomimetics to smart materials and 3D technology: Applications in orthodontic bonding, debonding, and appliance design or fabrication.

This review covers aspects of orthodontic materials, appliance fabrication and bonding, crossing scientific fields and presenting recent advances in science and technology. Its purpose is to familiarize the reader with developments on these issues, indicate possible future applications of such pioneering approaches, and report the current status in orthodontics. The first section of this review covers shape-memory polymer wires, several misconceptions arising from the recent introduction of novel three-dimensional (3D)-printed aligners (mistakenly termed shape-memory polymers only because they present a certain degree of rebound capacity, as most non-stiff alloys or polymers do), frictionless surfaces enabling resistance-less sliding, self-healing materials for effective handling of fractured plastic/ceramic brackets, self-cleaning materials to minimize microbial attachment or plaque build-up on orthodontic appliances, elastomers with reduced force relaxation and extended stretching capacity to address the problem of inadequate force application during wire-engagement in the bracket slot, biomimetic (non-etching mediated) adhesive attachment to surfaces based on the model of the gecko and the mussel, and command-debond adhesives as options for an atraumatic debonding. This review's second section deals with the recent and largely unsubstantiated application of 3D-printed alloys and polymers in orthodontics and aspects of planning, material fabrication, and appliance design.

In-house three-dimensional designing and printing customized brackets.

Digital technology is one of the major advancements during the past years that changed many aspects of our daily life. Medicine and dentistry were positively affected from the very first years of this digital evolution. Orthodontics is not an exception to this global digitization. Intraoral scanners, computer-aided design software, three-dimensional printers, and new materials were invented and introduced in dentistry and orthodontics during the last 20 years. The ability to include a small digital laboratory in the orthodontic office helped the creation of the in-house manufacturing concept. Continuously, the ability to design appliances that fit exactly to the teeth of the patient allowed the digital customization of almost every orthodontic appliance. Lately, the development of computer-aided design software called Ubrackets enabled the orthodontist to design and print customized orthodontic brackets in the orthodontic office. The designing workflow follows a specific protocol, which makes designing fast and easy. Three-dimensional printing of brackets can be performed using hybrid ceramic resin or zirconia slurry. Although some controversial studies exist, customized brackets have not been extensively studied despite that. A new term, "biological customization" is proposed, which takes into consideration the different biology of each patient, as opposed to teeth roots, bone turnover, and characteristics. Complete treatment customization should necessarily include mechanical and biological customization.

Three-Dimensional-Printed Customized Orthodontic and Pedodontic Appliances: A Critical Review of a New Era for Treatment.

Three-dimensional (3D) designing and manufacturing technology is a direct derivative of digital technology. Three-dimensional volume and surface acquisition, CAD software, and 3D manufacturing are major changes included in daily practice in many orthodontic and pedodontic offices. Customized appliances can be designed using dental CAD software or general-purpose CAD software in the office or a laboratory. Materials that can be used are resins, alloys, or zirconia. METHODS: The search strategy of this critical review included keywords in combination with MeSH terms in Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 2022 in the English language without any limit to the publication period. RESULTS: According to our search, 12 articles were selected for our study. All the articles were in vitro prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that almost all the known appliances can be designed and printed in a tailor-made fashion in contrast to the traditional one-size-fits-all approach. Customized appliances should be manufactured according to the patient's needs, and this is justified by the certainty that this approach will be beneficial for the patient's treatment. There is a need for more research on all direct 3D-printed appliances.

New aesthetic in-house 3D-printed brackets: proof of concept and fundamental mechanical properties.

OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is an emerging manufacturing process for many orthodontic appliances, and the aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties of resin-based materials as alternatives for the in-house preparation of orthodontic brackets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two types of 3D printed resins used for temporary (T) and permanent (P) crown fabrication were included in this study. Ten blocks from each resin were manufactured by a 3D printer and, after embedding them in acrylic resin, the samples were subjected to metallographic grinding and polishing, followed by instrumented indentation testing (IIT). Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), and elastic index (ηIT) were determined with a Vickers indenter recording force-indentation depth curves from each specimen. After calculating descriptive statistics, differences between material types were investigated with Wilcoxon rank sum test accounting for clustering of measurements within specimens at alpha = 5%. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the mechanical properties of the two tested materials were seen: HM: median 279 N/mm2 (interquartile range [IQR] 275-287 N/mm2) for T and median 279 N/mm2 (IQR 270-285 N/mm2) for P (P value = 0.63); EIT: median 5548 MPa (IQR 5425-5834 MPa) for T and median 5644 (IQR 5420-5850 MPa) for P (P value = 0.84); ηIT: median 47.1% (46.0-47.7%) for T and median 46.0% (IQR 45.4-47.8%) for P (P value = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Under the limitations of this study, it may be concluded that the mechanical properties of the two 3D printed resins tested are equal, and thus, no differences in their clinical performance are expected.

Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Orthodontics for Dental Models: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional printing technology is an additive manufacturing technology that is used to reconstruct 3D objects. In the last decade, it has been rapidly involved in dentistry and in orthodontics. This article aims to review the literature and present the accuracy of different 3D printer types and any factors that could affect the 3D printing of dental models in the orthodontic field. METHODS: The search strategy of this systematic review included keywords in combination with MeSH terms in Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library until June 2022 and only in English. RESULTS: Eleven articles were selected for our study. All the articles were in vitro prospective studies, and they presented a low risk of bias. The results suggested that the accuracy of a printed dental cast can be affected by the different types of 3D technologies, the dental cast's base design, and the printing materials. The accuracy appears to not be affected by the layer height and the position of the model on the building template. CONCLUSIONS: According to this systematic review, all different types of 3D technology can produce clinically accepted results for orthodontic purposes. There is a need for more studies to clarify the accuracy and added value of 3D printing technology in orthodontics.

Mechanical and electrochemical characterization of 3D printed orthodontic metallic appliances after in vivo ageing.

OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology is a promising technique for fabricating custom orthodontic metallic appliances. Aim of this study was to assess the effect of intraoral aging on the mechanical / electrochemical properties of 3D-printed orthodontic metallic appliances. METHODS: Twelve molar orthodontic distalization appliances 3D-printed from cobalt chromium (Co-Cr) alloy were retrieved after intraoral use and twenty blocks fabricated under similar conditions were used as control. The samples' microstructural / elemental composition assessment was assessed with SEM/EDS, while their mechanical properties (modulus of elasticity [EIT], Martens hardness [HM] and the elastic index [ηIT]) were measured by instrumented indentation testing. Finally, the samples' electrochemical features were assessed with a potentiostat-connected cell arrangement in terms of open circuit potential (OCP), corrosion potential (Ez), current density (I300) and breaking potential (Epit). Results were analyzed by t-test / Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The used Co-Cr alloy was found to have a highly homogenous structure with no significant differences between retrieved and new specimens in HM (4037.7 ± 215.6 vs 4090.9 ± 259.8 N/mm2), EIT (120.0 ± 13.2 vs 123.8 ± 12.9 GPa), or nIT (28.4 ± 2.6 vs 28.6 ± 2.9 %) (P > 0.05 in all instances). Metallic surfaces retained the same oxidation tendency and oxide dissolution rate in passive region in both groups (P > 0.05 for OCP, Ez, and I300). However, intraorally-aged specimens had a significantly lower breakdown potential due to degraded protection efficacy of surface oxide (P = 0.003 for Epit). SIGNIFICANCE: The tested 3D-printed Co-Cr orthodontic appliances present clinically-acceptable mechanical properties that remained unaffected by intraoral ageing, which however degraded the protection of surface oxide against pitting corrosion.

Digital assessment of direct and virtual indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A clinical prospective cross-sectional comparative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to use in orthodontic patients the methods of virtual indirect bonding and direct bonding using eye vision or loupes in order to compare their accuracy in the three dimensions of space. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Brackets were directly placed by one clinician to 18 patients with a total number of 298 permanent teeth. Then loupes were used to improve bracket positioning. Intraoral scanning of the dental arches was performed before bonding, after direct bonding and after the use of loupes. Subsequently, an orthodontic software was used to virtually indirectly bond the brackets on the first intraoral scanning taken before bonding. A three-dimensional mesh processing software was used to superimpose the three scans and to perform measurements in the mesio-distal and occlusal-gingival dimensions as well as in the mesio-distal angulation. RESULTS: Virtual indirect bonding was more accurate in bracket positioning compared to direct bonding by eye vision or using loupes in all teeth and most of the teeth groups measured. Specific teeth and locations in the dental arch areas exhibited more bonding inaccuracies in the two direct bonding groups as compared to virtual indirect bonding. The use of loupes did not significantly increase the bonding accuracy compared to direct vision. CONCLUSION: Indirect virtual bonding facilitated accurate bracket positioning compared to direct vision or with loupes direct bonding in the dimensions and angulation measured.