两种 CAD/CAM 引导粘接装置（GBD-U 与 GBD-B）的托槽粘接效果比较。

Comparison of bracket bonding between two CAD/CAM guided bonding devices: GBD-U vs GBD-B.

机构信息

State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University Chengdu 610041, China.

出版信息

J Dent. 2023 Apr;131:104456. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104456. Epub 2023 Feb 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104456

PMID:36849067

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the bracket bonding accuracy, efficiency, reproducibility, and three-dimensional (3D) printing duration of the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) unilateral contact guided bonding device (GBD-U) and the bilateral contact guided bonding device (GBD-B) in vitro.

METHODS

Five resin dental model sets were scanned and virtually bonded with brackets. GBD-U and GBD-B were designed and 3D printed for each model. GBD-Us had guide blocks that fit the occlusal sides of the bracket tie-wings, while GBD-Bs had guide arms that fit the occlusal and distal sides of the tie-wings. Five orthodontic residents were recruited to bond brackets on the same 3D-printed copies of resin models in a dental mannequin using GBD-Us and GBD-Bs, respectively. The time for 3D printing of GBDs and bracket bonding was recorded. The linear and angular deviations between the bonded brackets and the virtually bonded ones were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 50 sets of resin models (1000 brackets/tubes) were bonded. The time for 3D printing and bracket bonding was shorter for GBD-Us (41.96 mins/6.38 mins) than for GBD-Bs (78.04 mins/7.20 mins). In both devices, 100% linear deviations and over 95% angular deviations were below 0.5 mm or 2°, respectively. Deviations in the mesiodistal dimension, torque, angulation, and rotation were significantly lower in the GBD-U group (P<0.01). High inter-operator reproducibility of bracket bonding was confirmed for both devices.

CONCLUSION

GBD-U was more time-efficient in 3D printing. Both GBDs showed clinically acceptable accuracy, whereas GBD-U had higher bonding accuracy in the mesiodistal dimension, torque, angulation, and rotation than GBD-B.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CAD/CAM GBD-U provides high bracket bonding accuracy in a time-efficient manner and has the potential to be clinically applied.

摘要

目的

比较计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造（CAD/CAM）单侧接触引导粘接装置（GBD-U）和双侧接触引导粘接装置（GBD-B）在体外的托槽粘接准确性、效率、可重复性和三维（3D）打印持续时间。

方法

扫描五个树脂牙模并虚拟粘接托槽。为每个模型设计和 3D 打印 GBD-U 和 GBD-B。GBD-U 有适合托槽结扎翼的咬合侧的导块，而 GBD-B 有适合结扎翼的咬合侧和远中侧的导臂。招募了五名正畸医生，分别使用 GBD-U 和 GBD-B 将托槽粘接到相同的 3D 打印树脂模型副本上。记录 GBD 3D 打印和托槽粘接的时间。测量粘接托槽与虚拟托槽之间的线性和角度偏差。

结果

共粘接了 50 套树脂模型（1000 个托槽/管）。GBD-U 的 3D 打印和托槽粘接时间（41.96 分钟/6.38 分钟）短于 GBD-B（78.04 分钟/7.20 分钟）。在两种装置中，100%的线性偏差和超过 95%的角度偏差均低于 0.5 毫米或 2°。在 GBD-U 组中，近远中尺寸、转矩、角度和旋转的偏差明显较低（P<0.01）。两种装置的托槽粘接均具有较高的操作者间重现性。