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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohamed S. Hassan, Fatma A. Abdelsayed, Amany H. Abdelghany, Zac Morse, Mai H. Aboulfotouh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-01-01
Series:International Journal of Dentistry
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9059697
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849692614518898688
author Mohamed S. Hassan
Fatma A. Abdelsayed
Amany H. Abdelghany
Zac Morse
Mai H. Aboulfotouh
author_facet Mohamed S. Hassan
Fatma A. Abdelsayed
Amany H. Abdelghany
Zac Morse
Mai H. Aboulfotouh
author_sort Mohamed S. Hassan
collection DOAJ
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 Article
id doaj-art-981a17448cb64aa8b73ae89fd7c8ab8b
institution DOAJ
issn 1687-8736
language English
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series International Journal of Dentistry
spelling doaj-art-981a17448cb64aa8b73ae89fd7c8ab8b2025-08-20T03:20:39ZengWileyInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87362022-01-01202210.1155/2022/9059697For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical TrialMohamed S. Hassan0Fatma A. Abdelsayed1Amany H. Abdelghany2Zac Morse3Mai H. Aboulfotouh4Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsDepartment of Oral HealthDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsAim. 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9059697
spellingShingle Mohamed S. Hassan
Fatma A. Abdelsayed
Amany H. Abdelghany
Zac Morse
Mai H. Aboulfotouh
For Indirect Orthodontic Attachment Placement, Adding a Custom Composite Resin Base Is Not Beneficial: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
International Journal of Dentistry
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
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9059697
work_keys_str_mv AT mohamedshassan forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT fatmaaabdelsayed forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT amanyhabdelghany forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT zacmorse forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT maihaboulfotouh forindirectorthodonticattachmentplacementaddingacustomcompositeresinbaseisnotbeneficialasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial