Comparison of the accuracy of two techniques for three-dimensional digital indirect bonding of orthodontic brackets: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to clinically compare the accuracy of bracket positioning between three-dimensionally (3D) printed indirect bonding trays and vacuum-formed trays made over 3D-printed models. Material and Methods: Fourteen patients, planned for fixed orthodontic therapy, were randomly divided into two equal groups. For both groups, both dental arches were scanned, to acquire virtual models, brackets were virtually positioned from central incisors to second premolars, and scans for the final bracket positions were performed. In the first group, transfer trays were 3D-printed. In the second group, virtual models were 3D-printed, and vacuum-formed soft sheets were thermoformed on the printed model. Teeth were in-directly bonded and then scanned. Superimposition of the virtual and the final bracket positioning scans was performed to measure linear and angular deviations in brackets positions. Results: The first group showed significantly less occlusogin-gival and buccolingual linear errors than the second group. No significant differences in angular deviations were found between both groups. The frequencies of clinically acceptable linear errors within 0.5 mm and angular errors within 2° showed no statistically significant difference between both groups (p > 0.05 for all measurements). The transfer errors in both groups showed linear directional biases toward the mesial, gingival and labial directions. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of immediate debonding between both groups (10.7% and 7.1% for the first and the second groups, respectively, p=0.295). Conclusions: 3D-printed indirect bonding trays were more accurate than vacuum-formed trays, in terms of linear deviations. Both types of trays showed similar angular control.