Comparison of bracket bonding between two CAD/CAM guided bonding devices: GBD-U vs GBD-B

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the bracket bonding accuracy, efficiency, reproducibility, and three-dimensional (3D) printing duration of the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) unilateral contact guided bonding device (GBD-U) and the bilateral contact guided bonding device (GBD-B) in vitro. MethodsFive resin dental model sets were scanned and virtually bonded with brackets. GBD-U and GBD-B were designed and 3D printed for each model. GBD-Us had guide blocks that fit the occlusal sides of the bracket tie-wings, while GBD-Bs had guide arms that fit the occlusal and distal sides of the tie-wings. Five orthodontic residents were recruited to bond brackets on the same 3D-printed copies of resin models in a dental mannequin using GBD-Us and GBD-Bs, respectively. The time for 3D printing of GBDs and bracket bonding was recorded. The linear and angular deviations between the bonded brackets and the virtually bonded ones were measured. ResultsA total of 50 sets of resin models (1000 brackets/tubes) were bonded. The time for 3D printing and bracket bonding was shorter for GBD-Us (41.96 mins/6.38 mins) than for GBD-Bs (78.04 mins/7.20 mins). In both devices, 100% linear deviations and over 95% angular deviations were below 0.5 mm or 2°, respectively. Deviations in the mesiodistal dimension, torque, angulation, and rotation were significantly lower in the GBD-U group (P<0.01). High inter-operator reproducibility of bracket bonding was confirmed for both devices. ConclusionGBD-U was more time-efficient in 3D printing. Both GBDs showed clinically acceptable accuracy, whereas GBD-U had higher bonding accuracy in the mesiodistal dimension, torque, angulation, and rotation than GBD-B. Clinical SignificanceCAD/CAM GBD-U provides high bracket bonding accuracy in a time-efficient manner and has the potential to be clinically applied.