Hassan Mohamed S, Abdelsayed Fatma A, Abdelghany Amany H, Morse Zac, Aboulfotouh Mai H
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Egyptian Russian University, Cairo, Egypt.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Int J Dent. 2022 Jun 15;2022:9059697. doi: 10.1155/2022/9059697. eCollection 2022.
The aim of this study was to compare the chairside time, bond failure rate, and accuracy of bonding between two orthodontic attachment indirect bonding techniques.
Two indirect bonding techniques were studied: unaltered base attachment (UA) and custom base attachment (CBA) methods. Eighty-four orthodontic attachments were bonded on six patient stone models. Preoperative models were digitally scanned, and subsequently, attachments were transferred with the aid of a single but sectioned vacuum-formed tray to their corresponding patients. Finally, participants were scanned after attachment bonding to make the postoperative digital replicas. Chairside time and immediate bond failure rates were measured and compared between both techniques. Postoperative and preoperative digital models were then superimposed in order to measure the accuracy of bonding in the three dimensions of space.
No differences existed between the two techniques regarding chairside time (=0.87) and bond failure rates (=0.37). There were also no differences found for the total attachment movement (=0.73), mesiodistal (=0.10), occlusogingival (=0.31), torquing (=0.21), and rotational measurements (=0.18). The UA technique, however, proved to be more accurate for buccopalatal linear directions (=0.04), whilst the CBA technique showed more accuracy for tipping angular deviations ( < 0.01). There was a statistically significant directional bias for the UA towards the occlusal ( < 0.01) and palatal (=0.02) directions with mesial-out angular deviation (=0.02).
The two indirect bonding techniques were comparable for chairside time, bond failure rates, and most linear and angular measurements. The UA technique was, however, superior in buccopalatal directions, while the CBA method showed more tipping accuracy. Both techniques were efficient and reliable for indirect bonding.
本研究旨在比较两种正畸附件间接粘结技术的椅旁操作时间、粘结失败率及粘结准确性。
研究了两种间接粘结技术：未改变基底的附件（UA）法和定制基底的附件（CBA）法。在六个患者的石膏模型上粘结84个正畸附件。术前模型进行数字化扫描，随后，借助单个但分段的真空成型托盘将附件转移至相应患者。最后，在附件粘结后对参与者进行扫描以制作术后数字模型。测量并比较两种技术的椅旁操作时间和即刻粘结失败率。然后将术后和术前数字模型进行叠加，以测量空间三维方向上的粘结准确性。
两种技术在椅旁操作时间（=0.87）和粘结失败率（=0.37）方面无差异。在附件的整体移动（=0.73）、近远中向（=0.10）、咬合龈向（=0.31）、转矩（=0.21）和旋转测量（=0.18）方面也未发现差异。然而，UA技术在颊腭向线性方向上更准确（=0.04），而CBA技术在倾斜角度偏差方面显示出更高的准确性（<0.01）。UA技术在近中向外倾斜角度偏差（=0.02）时，在咬合向（<0.01）和腭向（=0.02）方向存在统计学上显著的方向偏差。
两种间接粘结技术在椅旁操作时间、粘结失败率以及大多数线性和角度测量方面具有可比性。然而，UA技术在颊腭向方向上更具优势，而CBA方法在倾斜准确性方面表现更佳。两种技术对于间接粘结都是有效且可靠的。
