Indirect bonding: an in-vitro comparison of a Polyjet printed versus a conventional silicone transfer tray

OBJECTIVES

To investigate and compare transfer accuracy between a Polyjet printed indirect bonding (IDB) tray (SureSmile, Dentsply Sirona, Richardson, TX, USA) and a conventional two-layered silicone tray.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plaster models of 24 patients were digitized with an intraoral scanner, and brackets and tubes were positioned virtually on the provider's homepage. IDB trays were designed over the planned attachments and Polyjet 3D-printed. For the conventional tray, brackets and tubes were bonded in their ideal positions manually before fabricating a two-layered silicone tray. For both trays, attachments were transferred indirectly to corresponding models. A second scan was performed of each bonded model to capture actual attachment positions, which were then compared to initial bracket positions using Geomagic Control (3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). Linear and angular deviations were evaluated for each attachment within a clinically acceptable range of ≤0.2 mm and 1°. A descriptive statistical analysis and a mixed model were executed.

RESULTS

Both trays showed highest accuracy in the orobuccal direction (99.5% for the 3D-printed tray and 100% for the conventional tray). For the 3D-printed tray, most frequent deviations were found for torque (15.4%) and, for the silicone tray, for rotation (1.9%). A significant difference was observed for angular measurements (P = .004) between the trays.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer accuracy of Polyjet printed IDB tray is not as high as transfer accuracy of the conventional silicone tray, though both trays show good results and are suitable for clinical application.

Accurate Bracket Placement with an Indirect Bonding Method Using Digitally Designed Transfer Models Printed in Different Orientations-An In Vitro Study

Objective: A digital workflow opens up new possibilities for the indirect bonding (IDB) of brackets. We tested if the printing orientation for bracket transfer models on the build platform of a 3D printer influences the accuracy of the following IDB method. We also evaluated the clinical acceptability of the IDB method combining digitally planned and printed transfer models with the conventional fabrication of pressure-molded transfer trays. Materials and Methods: In total, 27 digitally planned bracket transfer models were printed with both 15° and 75° angulation from horizontal plane on the build platform of a digital light processing (DLP) printer. Brackets were temporarily bonded to the transfer models and pressure-molded trays were produced on them. IDB was then performed using the trays on the respective plaster models. The plaster models were scanned with an optical scanner. Digitally planned pre-bonding and scanned post-bonding bracket positions were superimposed with a software and resulted in three linear and three angular deviations per bracket. Results: No statistically significant differences of the transfer accuracy of printed transfer models angulated 15° or 75° on the 3D printer build platform were found. About 97% of the linear and 82% of the angular deviations were within the clinically acceptable range of ±0.2 mm and ±1°, respectively. The highest inaccuracies in the linear dimension occurred in the vertical towards the gingival direction and in the angular dimension in palatal crown torque. Conclusion: For the IDB method used, the printing orientation on the build platform did not have a significant impact on the transfer accuracy.