Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques

Ana E. Castilla, Jennifer Crowe, J. Ryan Moses, Mansen Wang, Jack Ferracane, David Covell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. Materials and Methods: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double- PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n 5 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. Results: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n 5 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n 5 1; P , .05). With one exception, all significant differences were #0.26 mm and most (65%) were #0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. Conclusions: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:607-614.)

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)607-614
Number of pages8
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume84
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Vacuum
Photography
Silicones
vinyl polysiloxane
Analysis of Variance
Tooth

Keywords

  • Bracket bonding accuracy
  • Indirect bonding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. / Castilla, Ana E.; Crowe, Jennifer; Moses, J. Ryan; Wang, Mansen; Ferracane, Jack; Covell, David.

In: Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2014, p. 607-614.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Castilla, Ana E. ; Crowe, Jennifer ; Moses, J. Ryan ; Wang, Mansen ; Ferracane, Jack ; Covell, David. / Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. In: Angle Orthodontist. 2014 ; Vol. 84, No. 4. pp. 607-614.
@article{34f014cc08db463288e884118e87b312,
title = "Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques",
abstract = "Objective: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. Materials and Methods: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double- PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n 5 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. Results: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n 5 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n 5 1; P , .05). With one exception, all significant differences were #0.26 mm and most (65{\%}) were #0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. Conclusions: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:607-614.)",
keywords = "Bracket bonding accuracy, Indirect bonding",
author = "Castilla, {Ana E.} and Jennifer Crowe and Moses, {J. Ryan} and Mansen Wang and Jack Ferracane and David Covell",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.2319/070113-484.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "607--614",
journal = "Angle Orthodontist",
issn = "0003-3219",
publisher = "E H Angle Orthodontists Research & Education Foundation, Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques

AU - Castilla, Ana E.

AU - Crowe, Jennifer

AU - Moses, J. Ryan

AU - Wang, Mansen

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Covell, David

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objective: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. Materials and Methods: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double- PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n 5 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. Results: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n 5 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n 5 1; P , .05). With one exception, all significant differences were #0.26 mm and most (65%) were #0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. Conclusions: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:607-614.)

AB - Objective: To measure and compare bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding (IDB) techniques. Materials and Methods: Five IDB techniques were studied: double polyvinyl siloxane (double- PVS), double vacuum-form (double-VF), polyvinyl siloxane vacuum-form (PVS-VF), polyvinyl siloxane putty (PVS-putty), and single vacuum-form (single-VF). Brackets were bonded on 25 identical stone working models. IDB trays were fabricated over working models (n 5 5 per technique) to transfer brackets to another 25 identical stone patient models. The mesiodistal (M-D), occlusogingival (O-G), and faciolingual (F-L) positions of each bracket were measured on the working and patient models using digital photography (M-D, O-G) and calipers (F-L). Paired t-tests were used to compare bracket positions between working and patient models, and analysis of variance was used to compare bracket transfer accuracy among the five techniques. Results: Between the working and patient models, double-VF had the most teeth with significant differences (n 5 6) and PVS-VF the fewest (n 5 1; P , .05). With one exception, all significant differences were #0.26 mm and most (65%) were #0.13 mm. When the techniques were compared, bracket transfer accuracy was similar for double-PVS, PVS-putty, and PVS-VF, whereas double-VF and single-VF showed significantly less accuracy in the O-G direction. Conclusions: Although overall differences in bracket position were relatively small, silicone-based trays had consistently high accuracy in transferring brackets, whereas methods that exclusively used vacuum-formed trays were less consistent. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:607-614.)

KW - Bracket bonding accuracy

KW - Indirect bonding

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903553907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903553907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2319/070113-484.1

DO - 10.2319/070113-484.1

M3 - Article

C2 - 24555689

AN - SCOPUS:84903553907

VL - 84

SP - 607

EP - 614

JO - Angle Orthodontist

JF - Angle Orthodontist

SN - 0003-3219

IS - 4

ER -