ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the bracket positioning accuracy of the indirect bonding (IDB) transfer tray fabricated in-clinic using the tray printing (TP) and marker-model printing methods (MP). METHODS: The TP group was further divided into 2 groups (single-tray printing [STP] and multiple-tray printing [MTP]) depending on the presence of a tray split created using the 3-dimensional (3D) software. Five duplicated plaster models were used for each of the 3 experimental groups, and a total of 180 artificial teeth, except the second molar, were evaluated in the experiment. The dental model was scanned using a model scanner (E3; 3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark). Virtual brackets were placed on facial axis points, and the IDB trays were designed and fabricated using a 3D printer (VIDA; EnvisionTEC, Mich). The accuracy of bracket positioning was evaluated by comparing the planned bracket positions and the actual bracket positions using 3D analysis on inspection software. The main effects and first-order interaction effects were analyzed together by analysis for the analysis of variance. RESULTS: The mean distance and height errors were significantly lower in the STP group than those in the MP and MTP groups (P <0.05). The mean distance error was 0.06 mm in the STP group and 0.09 mm in the MP and MTP groups. The mean height error was 0.10 mm in the STP group and 0.15 mm and 0.18 mm in MP and MTP groups, respectively. However, no significant differences were observed in the angular errors among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The in-office-fabricated IDB system with computer-aided design and 3D printer is clinically applicable after considering the linear and angular errors. We recommend IDB trays fabricated using the STP method owing to the lower frequency of bracket positioning errors and ease of fabrication.
