İKİ FARKLI İNDİREKT BONDİNG TEKNİĞİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI – AĞIZ İÇİ TARAYICISIYLA YAPILAN KLİNİK ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Doğru braket pozisyonu sabit ortodontik tedavide tel bükümü ve braketleri tekrar pozisyonlandırma ihtiyacını azaltması açısından önemlidir. Ayrıca düzgün yerleştirilmiş braketler ortodontik tedavinin süresini de kısaltmaktadır. Bu nedenle indirekt bonding yöntemi braketlerin daha uygun pozisyonlandırılabilmesi için etkili bir metottur. Bu çalışmanın amacı indirekt bonding işlemi için dijital ve konvansiyonel olarak hazırlanan braket transfer plaklarının temel farklarını ortaya koymak ve yapıştırılan braketlerin konum farklılıklarını ağız içi tarayıcısıyla değerlendirmektir. Çalışmamızda 2 grup bulunmaktadır. Konvansiyonel indirekt bonding grubunda 6 hasta – 87 diş, dijital indirekt bonding grubunda 7 hasta – 87 diş olmak üzere toplam 13 hasta – 174 diş örneği değerlendirilmiştir. Dijital indirekt bonding yönteminde ağız içi ölçüler ağız içi tarayıcısıyla alınmıştır. Görüntüler bilgisayar programına aktarıldıktan sonra dişlerin ortodontik tedavi sonunda olması gereken pozisyonuna göre braketler konumlandırılmıştır. Buna göre elde edilen modellerin üç boyutlu yazıcıdan çıktısı alınıp braket transfer plağı oluşturulmuştur. Konvansiyonel indirekt bonding yönteminde ağız içi ölçüler aljinat ile alınıp alçı modeller elde edilmiştir. Modellerin üzerine braketler yerleştirilip braket transfer plağı oluşturulmuştur. Her iki grupta braketler oluşturulan plaklara yerleştirilerek hasta ağzına transfer edilmiştir. Final pozisyonları ağız içi tarayıcısı ile taranmıştır. Model ve ağız içindeki braket pozisyonları arasındaki farklılık Geomagic programı ile değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler, Mann Whitney U testi ile analiz edilmiştir (p<0.05). İki yöntem arasında braketlerin konum farklılığı açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık bulunmuştur. X ve Y düzlemi ile total konum farklılığı istatistiksel olarak dijital indirekt bonding grubunda daha yüksek bulunmuştur (p<0.05). İndirekt bonding yönteminde dijital teknolojilerin kullanması yöntemin doğruluğunu artıracağı fikri ile çalışmanın sonuçları çakışmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ağıziçi tarayıcı
• İndirekt bonding
• ortodonti

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT INDIRECT BONDING TECHNIQUES – CLINICAL STUDY WITH INTRAORAL SCANNER

Öz

Correct bracket position is important in fixed orthodontic treatment as it reduces the need for wire bending and repositioning brackets. In addition, properly placed brackets shorten the duration of orthodontic treatment. Therefore, indirect bonding technique is an effective method for more appropriate bracket positioning. Aim of this study is to define main differences of digital and conventional bracket transfer trays for indirect bonding and to evaluate the differences of brackets’ positions with an intraoral scanner. There are 2 groups in our study. In conventional indirect bonding group, 6 patients – 87 teeth, in digital indirect bonding group 7 patients – 87 teeth, a total of 13 patients – 174 teeth samples were evaluated. In digital indirect bonding technique, intraoral impressions were taken with an intraoral scanner. After images were transferred, brackets were placed virtually according to the end of orthodontic treatment. Models were printed from the three dimensional printer and bracket transfer tray was created. In conventional indirect bonding technique, intraoral impressions were taken with alginate and plaster models were created. Brackets were placed on the models and a bracket transfer tray was prepared. In both groups, brackets were placed on the formed trays and transferred to the patient's mouth. Final positions were scanned with an intraoral scanner. The difference between the bracket positions in the model and the mouth was evaluated with the Geomagic program. Data were analyzed with Mann Whitney U test (p<0.05). Statistically significant difference was found between the techniques in terms of the position difference of the brackets. The difference between the X and Y planes and the total position was statistically higher in digital indirect bonding group (p<0.05). The results of the study coincide with the idea that the use of digital technologies in the indirect bonding technique will increase the accuracy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• intraoral scanner
• indirect bonding
• orthodontics

Kaynakça

1. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, and Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):236-44. doi:10.1016/s0002-9416(72)90264-3
2. Kalange JT. Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the advantages. World J Orthod. 2004;5(4):301-7. PMID: 15633375
3. Zachrisson BU, Üşümez S, and Büyükyilmaz T. Bonding in Orthodontics. In: Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, and Huang GJ, eds. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques 6th ed. 2017. p. 812–862.
4. Panayi NC, Tsolakis AI, and 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):714-21. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2020.09.007. PMID: 33129700
5. Aboujaoude R, Kmeid R, Gebrael C, and 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. doi:10.1186/s40510-022-00426-3
6. Gundog H, Arman Ozcirpici A, and Pamukcu H. Transfer Accuracy of Three Indirect Bonding Trays: An In Vitro Study with 3D Scanned Models. Turk J Orthod. 2023;36(1):1-9. doi:10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.34. PMID: 36960701.
7. Duarte MEA, Gribel BF, Spitz A, Artese F, and Miguel JAM. Reproducibility of digital indirect bonding technique using three-dimensional (3D) models and 3D-printed transfer trays. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(1):92-9. doi:10.2319/030919-176.1. PMID: 31411488
8. Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang Z, Xu W, and Xiao L. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(1):67-73. doi:10.2319/013120-70.1

9. Shin SH, Lee KJ, Kim SJ, Yu HS, Kim KM, Hwang CJ, et al. Accuracy of bracket position using thermoplastic and 3D-printed indirect bonding trays. Int J Comput Dent. 2021;24(2):133-45. PMID: 34085499
10. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(5):589-99. doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70179-9
11. Wendl B, Droschl H, and Muchitsch P. Indirect bonding--a new transfer method. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(1):100-7. PMID: 18276930. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm094
12. Castilla AE, Crowe JJ, Moses JR, Wang M, Ferracane JL, et al. Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):607-14. doi:10.2319/070113-484.1 PMID: 24555689
13. Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP, and Spary DJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod. 2004;31(2):132-137. doi:10.1179/146531204225020427 PMID: 15210929
14. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, and Sanohkan S. Comparison of Accuracy of Current Ten Intraoral Scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:2673040. doi:10.1155/2021/2673040
15. Bachour PC, Klabunde R, and Grunheid T. Transfer accuracy of 3D-printed trays for indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(3):372-379. doi:10.2319/073021-596.1 PMID: 35006236
16. Pottier T, Brient A, Turpin YL, et al. Accuracy evaluation of bracket repositioning by indirect bonding: hard acrylic CAD/CAM versus soft one-layer silicone trays, an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(11):3889-3897. doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03256-x
17. Sachdeva RC. SureSmile technology in a patient--centered orthodontic practice. J Clin Orthod. 2001;35(4):245-253. PMID: 11345571
18. Kim YK, Kim SH, Choi TH, et al. Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: a retrospective in vivo study. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(8):4861-4869. doi:10.1007/s00784-021-03792-0
19. Armstrong D, Shen G, Petocz P, and Darendeliler MA. A comparison of accuracy in bracket positioning between two techniques—localizing the centre of the clinical crown and measuring the distance from the incisal edge. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29(5):430-436. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm037
20. Fiorillo G, Campobasso A, Caldara G, Battista G, Lo Muzio E, Mandelli G, et al. Accuracy of 3-dimensional-printed customized transfer tray using a flash-free adhesive system in digital indirect bonding: An in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023;S0889-5406(23)00167-1. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.02.017
21. Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, and Mizoguchi I. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J. 2018;37(4):628-633. doi:10.4012/dmj.2017-208