Does Operator-Dependent Indirect Bonding Techniques Differ from Auto-Determined Facial Axis Point?

Ece Başal

Makale detayları

Does Operator-Dependent Indirect Bonding Techniques Differ from Auto-Determined Facial Axis Point?

Yazarlar:

Ece Başal

Yayıncı:

Kocaeli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Klinik Tıp Bilimleri (Diğer)

Dergi:

Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.30-37

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

3/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343169

pISSN:

2149-8571

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Objective: Brackets are orthodontic attachments bonded to a tooth for the purpose of securing an orthodontic archwire. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether human error affects bracket position errors by comparing digital and analogue indirect bonding IDB techniques with fully digitized IDB protocols. Methods: Thirty-six intraoral models were divided into three groups. Ten brackets were placed in each cast incisors, canines, and premolars. In the automatic control group, brackets were placed according to facial axis point automatically calculated by Ortho Analyzer software. In the manual digital group MDG brackets were placed by an operator, while in the manual analogue group MAG brackets were placed on plaster models. Models were digitally superimposed and compared with control models 3D slicer. The linear and angular measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. Results: There were statistically significant differences in vertical, tipping, torque, and rotation for incisors and in vertical and torque for canines when comparing MDG with MAG placement. The error frequencies showed that 81.1 of brackets in the MDG were within acceptable limits, whereas only 62.5 were acceptable in the MAG group. The prevalence of accuracy in MDG was higher in all variables except tipping. Conclusion: Digital aids improved bracket position accuracy. Horizontal axis was the safest variable. Incisor of MAG showed increased discrepancy in all angular values and vertical dimension. Special consideration should be given to canines regarding vertical axis and torque errors in MAG. Angular positioning of premolars was more critical than linear positioning.

 Objective: Brackets are orthodontic attachments bonded to a tooth for the purpose of securing an orthodontic archwire. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether human error affects bracket position errors by comparing digital and analogue indirect bonding IDB techniques with fully digitized IDB protocols. Methods: Thirty-six intraoral models were divided into three groups. Ten brackets were placed in each cast incisors, canines, and premolars. In the automatic control group, brackets were placed according to facial axis point automatically calculated by Ortho Analyzer software. In the manual digital group MDG brackets were placed by an operator, while in the manual analogue group MAG brackets were placed on plaster models. Models were digitally superimposed and compared with control models 3D slicer. The linear and angular measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. Results: There were statistically significant differences in vertical, tipping, torque, and rotation for incisors and in vertical and torque for canines when comparing MDG with MAG placement. The error frequencies showed that 81.1 of brackets in the MDG were within acceptable limits, whereas only 62.5 were acceptable in the MAG group. The prevalence of accuracy in MDG was higher in all variables except tipping. Conclusion: Digital aids improved bracket position accuracy. Horizontal axis was the safest variable. Incisor of MAG showed increased discrepancy in all angular values and vertical dimension. Special consideration should be given to canines regarding vertical axis and torque errors in MAG. Angular positioning of premolars was more critical than linear positioning.

 Objective: Brackets are orthodontic attachments bonded to a tooth for the purpose of securing an orthodontic archwire. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether human error affects bracket position errors by comparing digital and analogue indirect bonding IDB techniques with fully digitized IDB protocols. Methods: Thirty-six intraoral models were divided into three groups. Ten brackets were placed in each cast incisors, canines, and premolars. In the automatic control group, brackets were placed according to facial axis point automatically calculated by Ortho Analyzer software. In the manual digital group MDG brackets were placed by an operator, while in the manual analogue group MAG brackets were placed on plaster models. Models were digitally superimposed and compared with control models 3D slicer. The linear and angular measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. Results: There were statistically significant differences in vertical, tipping, torque, and rotation for incisors and in vertical and torque for canines when comparing MDG with MAG placement. The error frequencies showed that 81.1 of brackets in the MDG were within acceptable limits, whereas only 62.5 were acceptable in the MAG group. The prevalence of accuracy in MDG was higher in all variables except tipping. Conclusion: Digital aids improved bracket position accuracy. Horizontal axis was the safest variable. Incisor of MAG showed increased discrepancy in all angular values and vertical dimension. Special consideration should be given to canines regarding vertical axis and torque errors in MAG. Angular positioning of premolars was more critical than linear positioning.

 Objective: Brackets are orthodontic attachments bonded to a tooth for the purpose of securing an orthodontic archwire. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether human error affects bracket position errors by comparing digital and analogue indirect bonding IDB techniques with fully digitized IDB protocols. Methods: Thirty-six intraoral models were divided into three groups. Ten brackets were placed in each cast incisors, canines, and premolars. In the automatic control group, brackets were placed according to facial axis point automatically calculated by Ortho Analyzer software. In the manual digital group MDG brackets were placed by an operator, while in the manual analogue group MAG brackets were placed on plaster models. Models were digitally superimposed and compared with control models 3D slicer. The linear and angular measurements were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. Results: There were statistically significant differences in vertical, tipping, torque, and rotation for incisors and in vertical and torque for canines when comparing MDG with MAG placement. The error frequencies showed that 81.1 of brackets in the MDG were within acceptable limits, whereas only 62.5 were acceptable in the MAG group. The prevalence of accuracy in MDG was higher in all variables except tipping. Conclusion: Digital aids improved bracket position accuracy. Horizontal axis was the safest variable. Incisor of MAG showed increased discrepancy in all angular values and vertical dimension. Special consideration should be given to canines regarding vertical axis and torque errors in MAG. Angular positioning of premolars was more critical than linear positioning.

Makale detayları

Does Operator-Dependent Indirect Bonding Techniques Differ from Auto-Determined Facial Axis Point?

Yazarlar:

Ece Başal

Yayıncı:

Kocaeli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Klinik Tıp Bilimleri (Diğer)

Dergi:

Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.30-37

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

3/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343169

pISSN:

2149-8571

Dental bonding

artificial intelligence

softwareDental bonding

artificial intelligence

software

Sayı

Makale detayları

Does Operator-Dependent Indirect Bonding Techniques Differ from Auto-Determined Facial Axis Point?

Yazarlar: Ece Başal

Yayıncı: Kocaeli University

Ana Başlıklar: Klinik Tıp Bilimleri (Diğer)

Dergi: Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.30-37

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 3/2025

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001343169

pISSN: 2149-8571

Dental bonding

artificial intelligence

softwareDental bonding

artificial intelligence

software

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Ece Başal

Yayıncı:

Kocaeli University

Ana Başlıklar:

Klinik Tıp Bilimleri (Diğer)

Dergi:

Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 1, pp.30-37

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

3/2025

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001343169

pISSN:

2149-8571