Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024
Is bracket bonding with guided bonding devices accurate enough for crowded dentition?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Peiqi, Li Bin, Tang Yuting, Huang Yixi, Han Xianglong, Bai Ding, Xue Chaoran
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This research aimed to study whether bracket bonding using guided bonding devices (GBDs) is accurate enough for crowded dentitions in vitro.
METHODS: Fifteen three-dimensionally (3D) printed resin model sets were included and divided into three groups: mild, moderate, and severe crowding. The resin models were scanned and virtually bonded with brackets. Corresponding GBDs were generated and 3D printed. Subsequently, the brackets were bonded to the resin models on a dental mannequin using the GBDs. The models with bonded brackets were scanned, and comparisons were made between the positions of the actually bonded and the planned ones to evaluate possible deviations.
RESULTS: There was no immediate bonding failure in any group. The bonding duration tended to increase with crowding severity (P > 0.05). Almost all linear and angular deviations in all groups were below 0.5 mm and 2°, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found among the different crowding degrees (P > 0.05). In all groups, the brackets tended to deviate lingually and had buccal crown torque. Brackets in the groups with mild and severe crowding showed a tendency for mesiobuccal rotation.
CONCLUSION: GBDs provide high bracket bonding accuracy for dentitions with different crowding degrees and, thus, could hopefully be applied to uncrowded and crowded dentitions alike.
METHODS: Fifteen three-dimensionally (3D) printed resin model sets were included and divided into three groups: mild, moderate, and severe crowding. The resin models were scanned and virtually bonded with brackets. Corresponding GBDs were generated and 3D printed. Subsequently, the brackets were bonded to the resin models on a dental mannequin using the GBDs. The models with bonded brackets were scanned, and comparisons were made between the positions of the actually bonded and the planned ones to evaluate possible deviations.
RESULTS: There was no immediate bonding failure in any group. The bonding duration tended to increase with crowding severity (P > 0.05). Almost all linear and angular deviations in all groups were below 0.5 mm and 2°, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found among the different crowding degrees (P > 0.05). In all groups, the brackets tended to deviate lingually and had buccal crown torque. Brackets in the groups with mild and severe crowding showed a tendency for mesiobuccal rotation.
CONCLUSION: GBDs provide high bracket bonding accuracy for dentitions with different crowding degrees and, thus, could hopefully be applied to uncrowded and crowded dentitions alike.