Accuracy of indirect bonding trays - a measurement algorithm.

AIM: To present an image-processing measurement algorithm to evaluate the transfer accuracy of indirect bonding (IDB) trays, exemplified by a CAD/CAM-based IDB tray integrated into a digital orthodontic workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plaster casts of 24 patients with full dentition and different malocclusions were scanned with an intraoral scanner (Trios; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) to obtain digital models, which served for the virtual placement of orthodontic brackets in simulation software (OnyxCeph; Image Instruments, Chemnitz, Germany). The resulting STL files were sent to a dental laboratory (CA Digital; Hilden, Germany) for the production of INDIVIDUA IDB trays. These trays were used to transfer the brackets to the respective plaster casts. Finally, a second scan was performed to record the actual bracket positions. The transfer accuracy was then analyzed by a measurement algorithm scripted to automation, which calculated the deviations of the planned and real bracket positions with a local best-fit alignment, resulting in three linear and three angular measurements for each bracket. RESULTS: In total, 622 brackets and tubes were transferred successfully. The presented algorithm analyzed the transfer accuracy and demonstrated that the linear measurements were 98.3% within the range of the American Board of Orthodontics standard. The angular measurements were 86.7% within this range when the INDIVIDUA IDB tray was used. CONCLUSION: Scripted measurement algorithms facilitated the evaluation of present and future materials and designs for IDB trays to obtain an efficient solution for orthodontic practice. The INDIVIDUA IDB tray is a digital alternative to conventional IDB trays (Int J Comput Dent 2022;25(3):295-302; doi: 10.3290/j.ijcd.b2599775).

3D-printed indirect bonding trays and transfer jigs for lingual brackets: Digital workflows and two case reports.

With the advancement of 3-dimensionally (3D) printing technology, orthodontists can design and fabricate 3D-printed indirect bonding trays and transfer jigs for lingual brackets independently from the laboratory. The present article describes, in detail, the digital workflows for designing and fabricating 3D-printed lingual bracket indirect bonding trays and transfer jigs. Additionally, it aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in managing common orthodontic issues in adult patients. The first case report exemplifies the successful management of moderate crowding in a Class I adult patient using a non-extraction approach with lingual brackets and flexible 3D-printed indirect bonding trays. The second case illustrates the application of lingual brackets and rigid 3D-printed indirect bonding trays in managing a skeletal Class II adult patient with mouth protrusion requiring four-bicuspid extractions. The achieved good treatment results might demonstrate the high transfer accuracy of 3D-printed lingual bracket indirect bonding trays. Additional studies with large sample sizes should be conducted to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of 3D-printed trays with other tray types.

Bracket Transfer Accuracy with the Indirect Bonding Technique-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). METHODS: Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.