Three-dimensional evaluation of bracket placement accuracy and excess bonding adhesive depending on indirect bonding technique and bracket geometry: an in-vitro study.
Bracket, excess adhesive
Indirect bonding, transfer accuracy
Siloxane tray
Journal
Head & face medicine
ISSN: 1746-160X
Titre abrégé: Head Face Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Aug 2020
03 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
14
01
2020
accepted:
08
07
2020
entrez:
4
8
2020
pubmed:
4
8
2020
medline:
15
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed at comparing bracket placement and excess bonding adhesive depending on different indirect bonding (IDB) techniques and bracket geometries. Four hundred eighty brackets without hook (WOH) and 360 with hook (WH) were placed on 60 plaster models. Three IDB techniques were tested: polyvinyl-siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl-siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and translucence double-polyvinyl-siloxane (double-PVS). PVS-VF and PVS-putty were combined with chemically, and double-PVS was combined with light cured bonding adhesive. Virtual images of models before and after bracket transfer were generated, and computerized images were compared. Linear, angular deviations, and excess bonding adhesive were measured. Linear differences between the three groups were obtained for PVS-VF (WH: 1.08, SD 0.50 mm; WOH: 0.86, SD 0.25 mm), PVS-putty (WH: 0.73, SD 0.51 mm; WOH: 0.58, SD 0.28 mm), and double-PVS (WH: 0.65, SD 0.45 mm; WOH: 0.59, SD 0.33 mm) (P < 0.001). Hooks affected bracket placement accuracy in PVS-VF (P < 0.001) and PVS-putty (P = 0.029). Angular differences were observed for brackets WOH between the PVS-VF (0.64, SD 0.48°) and double-PVS group (0.92, SD 0.76°) (P < 0.001) and within double-PVS group (WH: 0.66, SD 0.51° vs. WOH: 0.92, SD 0.76°, P < 0.001). Highest amount of excess adhesive was obtained for PVS-putty group (WH: 6.54, SD 5.31 mm The double-PVS group revealed promising results with respect to transfer accuracy, whereas the PVS-VF group provided least excess bonding adhesive. Basically, hooks lead to lower precision and higher excess bonding adhesive. PVS trays for IDB generate high bracket placement accuracy. PVS-putty is the easiest to handle with and also the cheapest, but leads to large excess bonding adhesive, especially in combination with hooked brackets or tubes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed at comparing bracket placement and excess bonding adhesive depending on different indirect bonding (IDB) techniques and bracket geometries.
METHODS
METHODS
Four hundred eighty brackets without hook (WOH) and 360 with hook (WH) were placed on 60 plaster models. Three IDB techniques were tested: polyvinyl-siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl-siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and translucence double-polyvinyl-siloxane (double-PVS). PVS-VF and PVS-putty were combined with chemically, and double-PVS was combined with light cured bonding adhesive. Virtual images of models before and after bracket transfer were generated, and computerized images were compared. Linear, angular deviations, and excess bonding adhesive were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Linear differences between the three groups were obtained for PVS-VF (WH: 1.08, SD 0.50 mm; WOH: 0.86, SD 0.25 mm), PVS-putty (WH: 0.73, SD 0.51 mm; WOH: 0.58, SD 0.28 mm), and double-PVS (WH: 0.65, SD 0.45 mm; WOH: 0.59, SD 0.33 mm) (P < 0.001). Hooks affected bracket placement accuracy in PVS-VF (P < 0.001) and PVS-putty (P = 0.029). Angular differences were observed for brackets WOH between the PVS-VF (0.64, SD 0.48°) and double-PVS group (0.92, SD 0.76°) (P < 0.001) and within double-PVS group (WH: 0.66, SD 0.51° vs. WOH: 0.92, SD 0.76°, P < 0.001). Highest amount of excess adhesive was obtained for PVS-putty group (WH: 6.54, SD 5.31 mm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The double-PVS group revealed promising results with respect to transfer accuracy, whereas the PVS-VF group provided least excess bonding adhesive. Basically, hooks lead to lower precision and higher excess bonding adhesive. PVS trays for IDB generate high bracket placement accuracy. PVS-putty is the easiest to handle with and also the cheapest, but leads to large excess bonding adhesive, especially in combination with hooked brackets or tubes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32741369
doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00231-5
pii: 10.1186/s13005-020-00231-5
pmc: PMC7397578
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17Références
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Nov;144(5):770-6
pubmed: 24182593
World J Orthod. 2004 Winter;5(4):301-7
pubmed: 15633375
Angle Orthod. 2007 May;77(3):509-17
pubmed: 17465662
Dental Press J Orthod. 2015 May-Jun;20(3):109-17
pubmed: 26154464
Am J Orthod. 1972 Sep;62(3):236-44
pubmed: 4559001
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Apr;151(4):669-677
pubmed: 28364889
Angle Orthod. 2016 Mar;86(2):260-4
pubmed: 26258897
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Aug;108(2):132-41
pubmed: 7625384
Am J Orthod. 1982 Oct;82(4):269-76
pubmed: 6760721
J Clin Orthod. 1993 Apr;27(4):215-7
pubmed: 8360338
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Sep;116(3):346-51
pubmed: 10474109
Angle Orthod. 2014 Jul;84(4):607-14
pubmed: 24555689
Dent Mater. 2011 Aug;27(8):770-8
pubmed: 21524789
J Orthod. 2001 Dec;28(4):267-70
pubmed: 11709591
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Apr;115(4):352-9
pubmed: 10194277
Eur J Orthod. 2007 Oct;29(5):430-6
pubmed: 17660488
Angle Orthod. 2016 May;86(3):468-74
pubmed: 26355994
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jan;119(1):76-80
pubmed: 11174544
J Orthod. 2004 Jun;31(2):132-7
pubmed: 15210929
J Dent Res. 1990 Mar;69(3):861-4
pubmed: 2109000
Eur J Orthod. 2001 Oct;23(5):475-84
pubmed: 11668867
J Clin Orthod. 1979 Feb;13(2):93-106
pubmed: 397232
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Mar;119(3):377-383
pubmed: 28689912
Am J Orthod. 1979 Jun;75(6):667-77
pubmed: 377979