For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
International journal of dentistry
ISSN: 1687-8728
Titre abrégé: Int J Dent
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101524183
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
01
2022
revised:
05
05
2022
accepted:
24
05
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare the chairside time, bond failure rate, and accuracy of bonding between two orthodontic attachment indirect bonding techniques. Two indirect bonding techniques were studied: unaltered base attachment (UA) and custom base attachment (CBA) methods. Eighty-four orthodontic attachments were bonded on six patient stone models. Preoperative models were digitally scanned, and subsequently, attachments were transferred with the aid of a single but sectioned vacuum-formed tray to their corresponding patients. Finally, participants were scanned after attachment bonding to make the postoperative digital replicas. Chairside time and immediate bond failure rates were measured and compared between both techniques. Postoperative and preoperative digital models were then superimposed in order to measure the accuracy of bonding in the three dimensions of space. No differences existed between the two techniques regarding chairside time ( The two indirect bonding techniques were comparable for chairside time, bond failure rates, and most linear and angular measurements. The UA technique was, however, superior in buccopalatal directions, while the CBA method showed more tipping accuracy. Both techniques were efficient and reliable for indirect bonding.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35756958
doi: 10.1155/2022/9059697
pmc: PMC9217580
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9059697Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Mohamed S. Hassan et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Prog Orthod. 2014 Dec 30;15:70
pubmed: 25547461
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Sep;116(3):346-51
pubmed: 10474109
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Sep 28;40(5):549-555
pubmed: 29471483
Angle Orthod. 2014 Jul;84(4):607-14
pubmed: 24555689
Polymers (Basel). 2021 Aug 16;13(16):
pubmed: 34451279
Angle Orthod. 2022 May 1;92(3):372-379
pubmed: 35006236
Angle Orthod. 2007 May;77(3):509-17
pubmed: 17465662
J Orthod. 2021 Mar;48(1):13-23
pubmed: 33843329
Angle Orthod. 2016 May;86(3):468-74
pubmed: 26355994
J Orthod. 2004 Jun;31(2):132-7
pubmed: 15210929
Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29
pubmed: 26110925
Angle Orthod. 2021 Jan 1;91(1):67-73
pubmed: 33289807
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jul;154(1):26-34.e1
pubmed: 29957314
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014 Jul;6(Suppl 1):S85-9
pubmed: 25210392
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-32
pubmed: 20335313
J Clin Orthod. 2016 Oct;50(10):613-619
pubmed: 27888654
Eur J Orthod. 2017 Apr 1;39(2):122-133
pubmed: 27907894
Am J Orthod. 1972 Sep;62(3):236-44
pubmed: 4559001
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Sep;98(3):259-62
pubmed: 2206041
Head Face Med. 2020 Aug 3;16(1):17
pubmed: 32741369
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Feb;157(2):269-277
pubmed: 32005479
J Clin Orthod. 1999 Jan;33(1):17-23
pubmed: 10535005
J Clin Orthod. 1979 Feb;13(2):93-106
pubmed: 397232