Schmid Johanna, Brenner Daniel, Recheis Wolfgang, Hofer-Picout Philipp, Brenner Martin, Crismani Adriano G
University Hospital for Orthodontics, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria.
Department of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria.
Eur J Orthod. 2018 Sep 28;40(5):549-555. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjy006.
Indirect bonding (IDB) proved to be an effective method for appropriate bracket positioning in patients. Different methods and materials are available for fabricating transfer trays. This in vitro study was designed to measure and compare the transfer accuracy of two common IDB methods.
Sixty stone models were fabricated and separated in two groups of 30 models each (15 working models, 15 patient models). After placing brackets on the working models, 30 IDB trays were made: 15 silicone (method I) and 15 double-vacuum forms (method II). With these trays, the brackets were transferred to the patient models. The bracket positions were scanned before and after the IDB procedure with an intraoral scanner. The linear and angular discrepancies were then determined digitally by measuring six different dimensions: occluso-cervical, mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, tip, rotation, and torque.
The silicone trays showed fewer transfer discrepancies, on average, in all measured dimensions. There were significant differences between the methods in the occluso-cervical (P < 0.001), mesio-distal (P = 0.001), and torque (P = 0.044) dimensions. With both methods, 100 per cent of the horizontal and transversal measurements of both methods were within the clinically acceptable range of 0.25 mm. With method I, 98.5 per cent of the vertical and 95.9 per cent of the angular measurements were within the range of 0.25 mm and 1°, respectively. With method II, 94 per cent of the vertical and 84.8 per cent of the angular measurements were within the clinically acceptable range.
Although both transfer methods showed a high precision, silicone trays scored better in terms of accuracy than double-vacuum forms.
间接粘结（IDB）被证明是一种在患者中实现合适托槽定位的有效方法。有不同的方法和材料可用于制作转移托盘。本体外研究旨在测量和比较两种常见间接粘结方法的转移准确性。
制作60个石膏模型，并将其分为两组，每组30个模型（15个工作模型，15个患者模型）。在工作模型上放置托槽后，制作30个间接粘结托盘：15个硅胶托盘（方法I）和15个双真空成型托盘（方法II）。使用这些托盘将托槽转移到患者模型上。在间接粘结操作前后，使用口腔内扫描仪对托槽位置进行扫描。然后通过测量六个不同维度：咬合-颈部、近中-远中、颊-舌向、倾斜、旋转和扭矩，以数字方式确定线性和角度差异。
平均而言，硅胶托盘在所有测量维度上显示出较少的转移差异。在咬合-颈部（P < 0.001）、近中-远中（P = 0.001）和扭矩（P = 0.044）维度上，两种方法之间存在显著差异。两种方法的水平和横向测量的100%均在临床可接受的0.25毫米范围内。对于方法I，98.5%的垂直测量和95.9%的角度测量分别在0.25毫米和1°范围内。对于方法II，94%的垂直测量和84.8%的角度测量在临床可接受范围内。
尽管两种转移方法都显示出高精度，但硅胶托盘在准确性方面比双真空成型托盘得分更高。
Zotero 插件