Abstract
BackgroundThis study aimed at comparing bracket placement and excess bonding adhesive depending on different indirect bonding (IDB) techniques and bracket geometries.MethodsFour 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.ResultsLinear 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 2).ConclusionsThe 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.
Highlights
This study aimed at comparing bracket placement and excess bonding adhesive depending on different indirect bonding (IDB) techniques and bracket geometries
Maximum angular deviation is defined as the greatest possible angle between reference and test plane applied to Debonded brackets Of 840 brackets, 11 remained in the trays after removal from the transfer model: 5 in the Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS)-VF group [#11, #13, #19, #20, #29; 2 with hook (WH), 3 without hook (WOH)], 4 in the PVS-putty group (#3, #4, #27, #28; 2 WH, 2 WOH), and 2 in the double-PVS group (#3, #18, both WH)
The present study investigates with the effects of three common IDB techniques based on three different siloxane trays and two different bonding adhesives for maximum linear and angular bracket deviation as well as compares and evaluates the excess bonding adhesive material around the bracket base; it investigates if bracket hooks or tubes affect the mentioned parameters
Summary
This study aimed at comparing bracket placement and excess bonding adhesive depending on different indirect bonding (IDB) techniques and bracket geometries. Silverman et al was the first to introduce the indirect bonding (IDB) technique [3] For this purpose, brackets were ideally placed on dental casts to be transferred to the patient’s tooth using a fabricated IDB tray. Castilla et al obtained similar results, wherein five transfer techniques were compared with each other and overall small differences in bracket position were observed; the siliconebased trays had a highly consistent high transfer bracket accuracy, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuumformed trays were less consistent [13] In this context, the possible influence of the bracket geometry itself, such as hook presence, has not been investigated yet
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have