A PHP Error was encountered

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

Comparative analysis of lingual bracket transfer accuracy using fully versus partially enclosed 3D-printed indirect bonding trays: an study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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/PMC12180451PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19612DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transfer accuracy
16
torque errors
12
bracket transfer
8
accuracy fully
8
partially enclosed
8
indirect bonding
8
bonding trays
8
compare transfer
8
angular errors
8
buccolingual occlusogingival
8

Similar Publications