Evaluation of the accuracy of digital indirect bonding vs. conventional systems: a randomized clinical trial

Evaluation of the accuracy of digital indirect bonding vs. conventional systems: a randomized clinical trial

To compare the accuracy and chair time of self-ligating brackets using direct bonding, traditional indirect bonding (IB), and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) IB techniques after orthodontic leveling and alignment. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to three bondi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Angle orthodontist
Main Authors: Soares Ueno, Eloisa Peixoto, de Carvalho, Teresa Cristina Alvez da Silva Gonzalez, Kanashiro, Lylian Kazumi, Ursi, Weber, Chilvarquer, Israel, Neto, José Rino, de Paiva, João Batista
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 11-10-2024
Subjects:
Digital bonding
Digital flow
Digital trays
Indirect bonding
CAD/CAM
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To compare the accuracy and chair time of self-ligating brackets using direct bonding, traditional indirect bonding (IB), and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) IB techniques after orthodontic leveling and alignment. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to three bonding groups (G1 [n = 15], G2 [n = 15], and G3 [n = 15]). Evaluation after the alignment and leveling phases used two parameters of the objective grading system of the American Board of Orthodontics for root parallelism and posterior marginal ridges, assessed using panoramic radiographies (PR I and PR II), a digital model, and a plaster model. Blinding was only applied for outcome assessment. No serious harm was observed except for gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation. Although G3 showed better numerical results, they were not statistically significant in the radiographic or model evaluations (P > .001). Mean chair time was significantly shorter in G3 (1.1 ± 11.8 min) vs. G1 (56.7 ± 7.3 min) and G2 (52.8 ± 8.3 min; P < .001). The CAD/CAM IB system for self-ligating brackets was as effective as conventional methods, with a shorter chair time.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0003-3219
1945-7103
1945-7103
DOI:10.2319/030624-179.1