Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 1;92(3):364-371.
doi: 10.2319/040821-283.1.

Bracket transfer accuracy with two different three-dimensional printed transfer trays vs silicone transfer trays

Lea Hoffmann, Hisham Sabbagh, Andera Wichelhaus, Andreas Kessler

Bracket transfer accuracy with two different three-dimensional printed transfer trays vs silicone transfer trays

Lea Hoffmann et al. Angle Orthod. .

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the transfer accuracy of two different three-dimensional printed trays (Dreve FotoDent ITB [Dreve Dentamid, Unna, Germany] and NextDent Ortho ITB [NextDent, Soesterberg, the Netherlands]) to polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) trays for indirect bonding.

Materials and methods: A total of 10 dental models were constructed for each investigated material. Virtual bracket placement was performed on a scanned dental model using OnyxCeph (OnyxCeph 3D Lab, Chemnitz, Germany). Three-dimensional printed transfer trays using a digital light processing system three-dimensional printer and silicone transfer trays were produced. Bracket positions were scanned after the indirect bonding procedure. Linear and angular transfer errors were measured. Significant differences between mean transfer errors and frequency of clinically acceptable errors (<0.25 mm/1°) were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests, respectively.

Results: All trays showed comparable accuracy of bracket placement. NextDent exhibited a significantly higher frequency of rotational error within the limit of 1° (P = .01) compared with the PVS tray. Although PVS showed significant differences between the tooth groups in all linear dimensions, Dreve exhibited a significant difference in the buccolingual direction only. All groups showed a similar distribution of directional bias.

Conclusions: Three-dimensional printed trays achieved comparable results with the PVS trays in terms of bracket positioning accuracy. NextDent appears to be inferior compared with PVS regarding the frequency of clinically acceptable errors, whereas Dreve was found to be equal. The influence of tooth groups on the accuracy of bracket positioning may be reduced by using an appropriate three-dimensional printed transfer tray (Dreve).

Keywords: 3D printing; Indirect bonding; Transfer accuracy; Virtual bracket placement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Workflow for the different material trays. (a) Dental models. (b) Virtual bracket placement. (c) Silicone trays. (d) Three-dimensional printed transfer trays of each material. (e) Bonding, scanning of the brackets, and overlay with the reference data set.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Defined coordinate system for analyzing the offset of the overlay of the scan and the reference data set. Mesiodistal: Mesial(+), Distal(−). Vertical: Occlusal(+), Gingival(−). Buccolingual: Buccal(+), Lingual(−). Angulation: mesial root tip(+), distal root tip(−). Torque: buccal crown torque(+), lingual crown torque(−). Rotation: mesiobuccal(+), mesiolingual(−).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Prevalence of the clinically acceptable transfer errors of the different tray materials. NextDent significantly exceeded the critical limit of 1° more frequently compared with PVS. *P = .01.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Prevalence of the clinically acceptable transfer errors of the tooth types and tray materials investigated. (a) NextDent. (b) Dreve. (c) PVS.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dalessandri D, Dalessandri M, Bonetti S, Visconti L, Paganelli C. Effectiveness of an indirect bonding technique in reducing plaque accumulation around braces. Angle Orthod . 2012;82(2):313–318. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gange P. The evolution of bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 2015;147(4):56–63. - PubMed
    1. Guenthner TA, Larson BE. Indirect bonding: a technique for precision and efficiency. Semin Orthod . 2007;13(1):58–63.
    1. Kalange JT. Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the advantages. World J Orthod . 2004;5(4):301–307. - PubMed
    1. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels DS, Vogels PB. 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod . 2014;48(10):607–630. - PubMed