Cargando…

For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

AIM: 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. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two indirect bonding techniques were studied: unaltered base attachment (UA) and custom base attachment (CBA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hassan, Mohamed S., Abdelsayed, Fatma A., Abdelghany, Amany H., Morse, Zac, Aboulfotouh, Mai H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9059697
_version_ 1784731679528583168
author Hassan, Mohamed S.
Abdelsayed, Fatma A.
Abdelghany, Amany H.
Morse, Zac
Aboulfotouh, Mai H.
author_facet Hassan, Mohamed S.
Abdelsayed, Fatma A.
Abdelghany, Amany H.
Morse, Zac
Aboulfotouh, Mai H.
author_sort Hassan, Mohamed S.
collection PubMed
description AIM: 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. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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. RESULTS: No differences existed between the two techniques regarding chairside time (P=0.87) and bond failure rates (P=0.37). There were also no differences found for the total attachment movement (P=0.73), mesiodistal (P=0.10), occlusogingival (P=0.31), torquing (P=0.21), and rotational measurements (P=0.18). The UA technique, however, proved to be more accurate for buccopalatal linear directions (P=0.04), whilst the CBA technique showed more accuracy for tipping angular deviations (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant directional bias for the UA towards the occlusal (P < 0.01) and palatal (P=0.02) directions with mesial-out angular deviation (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9217580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92175802022-06-23 For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial Hassan, Mohamed S. Abdelsayed, Fatma A. Abdelghany, Amany H. Morse, Zac Aboulfotouh, Mai H. Int J Dent Research Article AIM: 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. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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. RESULTS: No differences existed between the two techniques regarding chairside time (P=0.87) and bond failure rates (P=0.37). There were also no differences found for the total attachment movement (P=0.73), mesiodistal (P=0.10), occlusogingival (P=0.31), torquing (P=0.21), and rotational measurements (P=0.18). The UA technique, however, proved to be more accurate for buccopalatal linear directions (P=0.04), whilst the CBA technique showed more accuracy for tipping angular deviations (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant directional bias for the UA towards the occlusal (P < 0.01) and palatal (P=0.02) directions with mesial-out angular deviation (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: 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. Hindawi 2022-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9217580/ /pubmed/35756958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9059697 Text en Copyright © 2022 Mohamed S. Hassan et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hassan, Mohamed S.
Abdelsayed, Fatma A.
Abdelghany, Amany H.
Morse, Zac
Aboulfotouh, Mai H.
For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort for indirect orthodontic attachment placement, adding a custom composite resin base is not beneficial: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35756958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9059697
work_keys_str_mv AT hassanmohameds forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT abdelsayedfatmaa forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT abdelghanyamanyh forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT morsezac forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT aboulfotouhmaih forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial