Does Operator-Dependent Indirect Bonding Techniques Differ from Auto-Determined Facial Axis Point?

Abstract

Objective: Brackets are orthodontic attachments bonded to a tooth for the purpose of securing an orthodontic archwire. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether human error affects bracket position errors by comparing digital and analogue indirect bonding (IDB) techniques with fully digitized IDB protocols. Methods: Thirty-six intraoral models were divided into three groups. Ten brackets were placed in each cast (incisors, canines, and premolars). In the automatic control group, brackets were placed according to facial axis point automatically calculated by Ortho Analyzer software. In the manual digital group (MDG) brackets were placed by an operator, while in the manual analogue group (MAG) brackets were placed on plaster models. Models were digitally superimposed and compared with control models (3D slicer). The linear and angular measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. Results: There were statistically significant differences in vertical, tipping, torque, and rotation for incisors and in vertical and torque for canines when comparing MDG with MAG placement. The error frequencies showed that 81.1% of brackets in the MDG were within acceptable limits, whereas only 62.5% were acceptable in the MAG group. The prevalence of accuracy in MDG was higher in all variables except tipping. Conclusion: Digital aids improved bracket position accuracy. Horizontal axis was the safest variable. Incisor of MAG showed increased discrepancy in all angular values and vertical dimension. Special consideration should be given to canines regarding vertical axis and torque errors in MAG. Angular positioning of premolars was more critical than linear positioning.

Keywords

• Dental bonding
• artificial intelligence
• software

References

1. Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod. 1976;10(2):99-114.
2. Carlson SK, Johnson E. Bracket positioning and resets: five steps to align crowns and roots consistently. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(1):76-80.
3. Miethke RR, Melsen B. Effect of variation in tooth morphology and bracket position on first and third order correction with preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(3):329-335.
4. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):236-244.
5. Panayi NC, Tsolakis AI, Athanasiou AE. Digital assessment of direct and virtual indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A clinical prospective cross-sectional comparative investigation. Int Orthod. 2020;18(4):714-721.
6. Spitz A, Gribel BF, Marassi C. CAD/CAM technology for digital indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod. 2018;52(11):621-628.
7. Müller-Hartwich R, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schubert K. Precision of implementing virtual setups for orthodontic treatment using CAD/CAM-fabricated custom archwires. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77(1):1-8.
8. Larson BE, Vaubel CJ, Grünheid T. Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted outcomes. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):557-562.

9. Czolgosz I, Cattaneo PM, Cornelis MA. Computer-aided indirect bonding versus traditional direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: bonding time, immediate bonding failures, and cost-minimization. A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43(2):144-151.
10. Kim J, Chun YS, Kim M. Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(2):298-307.
11. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(5):589-599.
12. Li Y, Mei L, Wei J, et al. Effectiveness, efficiency and adverse effects of using direct or indirect bonding technique in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):137.
13. Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, Spary DJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod. 2004;31(2):132-137.
14. Israel M, Kusnoto B, Evans CA, Begole E. A comparison of traditional and computer-aided bracket placement methods. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(5):828-835.
15. Yilmaz H, Eglenen MN. Comparison of the effect of using panoramic and cone‐beam computed tomography on the accuracy of root position in indirect digital bracket placement: A retrospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022;25(3), 401-408.
16. El-Timamy AM, El-Sharaby FA, Eid FH, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional imaging for indirect-direct bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(6), 928-931.
17. Castilla AE, Crowe JJ, Moses JR, Wang M, Ferracane JL, Covell DA Jr. Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):607-614.
18. Brown MW, Koroluk L, Ko CC, Zhang K, Chen M, Nguyen T. Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(6):1067-1074.
19. Grünheid T, Lee MS, Larson BE. Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(3):468-474.
20. Schmid J, Brenner D, Recheis W, Hofer-Picout P, Brenner M, Crismani AG. Transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques-an in vitro study with 3D scanned models. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(5):549-555.
21. Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(4):269-276.
22. Koo BC, Chung CH, Vanarsdall RL. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(3):346-351.
23. Aboujaoude R, Kmeid R, Gebrael C, Amm E. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study. Prog Orthod. 2022;23(1):31.
24. Cha BK, Choi JI, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Jeong YM. Applications of three-dimensionally scanned models in orthodontics. Int J Comput Dent. 2007;10(1):41-52.
25. De Luca Canto G, Pachêco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):65-76.
26. Camardella LT, Ongkosuwito EM, Penning EW, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Vilella OV, Breuning KH. Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners. Korean J Orthod. 2020;50(1):13-25.
27. Araújo TM, Fonseca LM, Caldas LD, Costa-Pinto RA. Preparation and evaluation of orthodontic setup. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17:146–165.
28. Vasilakos G, Schilling R, Halazonetis D, Gkantidis N. Assessment of different techniques for 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental casts on palatal structures. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5838.
29. Ganzer N, Feldmann I, Liv P, Bondemark L. A novel method for superimposition and measurements on maxillary digital 3D models-studies on validity and reliability. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(1):45-51.
30. Adel SM, Vaid NR, El-Harouni N, Kassem H, Zaher AR. Tip, torque & rotations: How accurately do digital superimposition software packages quantify tooth movement?. Prog Orthod. 2022;23(1):8.
31. El-Zanaty HM, El-Beialy AR, Abou El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El-Bialy AR, Mostafa YA. Three-dimensional dental measurements: An alternative to plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(2):259-265.
32. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: A systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(1):1-16.
33. Oliveira NS, Gribel BF, Neves LS, Lages EMB, Macari S, Pretti H. Comparison of the accuracy of virtual and direct bonding of orthodontic accessories. Dental Press J Orthod. 2019;24(4):46-53.
34. Muguruma T, Yasuda Y, Iijima M, Kohda N, Mizoguchi I. Force and amount of resin composite paste used in direct and indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(6):1089–1094.