Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Lingual orthodontic treatment requires precise bracket positioning to ensure optimal outcomes. This study aimed to compare the transfer accuracy of fully enclosed (FE) and partially enclosed (PE) three-dimensionally (3D) printed indirect bonding trays for lingual brackets, focusing on linear and angular errors, and to evaluate their clinical applicability.
Materials And Methods: A total of 20 patients with 498 brackets bonded on both arches were included in this study. Two tray designs-FE and PE-were fabricated using a standardized digital workflow and 3D-printed with rigid resin. Bracket transfer accuracy was assessed by superimposing post-bonding scans with planned virtual models. Linear (mesiodistal, buccolingual, occlusogingival) and angular (rotation, angulation, torque) errors were measured. Statistical analyses included t-tests to compare transfer accuracy between the two tray designs.
Results: Both tray designs achieved clinically acceptable linear accuracy, with errors below 0.5 mm across all dimensions. Angular errors for rotation and angulation were also within clinically acceptable limits of 2°, but torque transfer remains a challenge for both tray designs. The PE design showed significantly lower buccolingual and occlusogingival errors for premolars and the total sample, while the FE design demonstrated significantly lower torque errors for molars. However, the FE design required longer bonding times (84.2 ± 14.5 min) compared to the PE design (70.7 ± 12.8 min, = 0.041), without offering a significant overall accuracy advantage.
Conclusion: The PE tray design is the preferred option over the FE design for its simplicity and accuracy. Torque errors in the PE design can be mitigated with supplementary stabilization materials.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12180451 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19612 | DOI Listing |