Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Dental Press J Orthod ; 29(3): e2423117, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38985074

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to clinically compare the accuracy of bracket positioning between three-dimensionally (3D) printed indirect bonding trays and vacuum-formed trays made over 3D-printed models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen patients, planned for fixed orthodontic therapy, were randomly divided into two equal groups. For both groups, both dental arches were scanned, to acquire virtual models, brackets were virtually positioned from central incisors to second premolars, and scans for the final bracket positions were performed. In the first group, transfer trays were 3D-printed. In the second group, virtual models were 3D-printed, and vacuum-formed soft sheets were thermoformed on the printed model. Teeth were indirectly bonded and then scanned. Superimposition of the virtual and the final bracket positioning scans was performed to measure linear and angular deviations in brackets positions. RESULTS: The first group showed significantly less occlusogingival and buccolingual linear errors than the second group. No significant differences in angular deviations were found between both groups. The frequencies of clinically acceptable linear errors within 0.5 mm and angular errors within 2° showed no statistically significant difference between both groups (p> 0.05 for all measurements). The transfer errors in both groups showed linear directional biases toward the mesial, gingival and labial directions. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of immediate debonding between both groups (10.7% and 7.1% for the first and the second groups, respectively, p=0.295). CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed indirect bonding trays were more accurate than vacuum-formed trays, in terms of linear deviations. Both types of trays showed similar angular control.


Asunto(s)
Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo , Soportes Ortodóncicos , Impresión Tridimensional , Humanos , Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo/métodos , Modelos Dentales , Femenino , Vacio , Masculino , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Diente Premolar/diagnóstico por imagen
2.
Dental press j. orthod. (Impr.) ; 29(3): e2423117, 2024. tab, graf
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS-Express | LILACS, BBO - Odontología | ID: biblio-1564447

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to clinically compare the accuracy of bracket positioning between three-dimensionally (3D) printed indirect bonding trays and vacuum-formed trays made over 3D-printed models. Material and Methods: Fourteen patients, planned for fixed orthodontic therapy, were randomly divided into two equal groups. For both groups, both dental arches were scanned, to acquire virtual models, brackets were virtually positioned from central incisors to second premolars, and scans for the final bracket positions were performed. In the first group, transfer trays were 3D-printed. In the second group, virtual models were 3D-printed, and vacuum-formed soft sheets were thermoformed on the printed model. Teeth were indirectly bonded and then scanned. Superimposition of the virtual and the final bracket positioning scans was performed to measure linear and angular deviations in brackets positions. Results: The first group showed significantly less occlusogingival and buccolingual linear errors than the second group. No significant differences in angular deviations were found between both groups. The frequencies of clinically acceptable linear errors within 0.5 mm and angular errors within 2° showed no statistically significant difference between both groups (p> 0.05 for all measurements). The transfer errors in both groups showed linear directional biases toward the mesial, gingival and labial directions. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of immediate debonding between both groups (10.7% and 7.1% for the first and the second groups, respectively, p=0.295). Conclusions: 3D-printed indirect bonding trays were more accurate than vacuum-formed trays, in terms of linear deviations. Both types of trays showed similar angular control.


RESUMO Objetivo: Esse estudo teve como objetivo comparar clinicamente a precisão no posicionamento de braquetes usando guias de colagem indireta impressas tridimensionalmente (3D) e guias termoformadas a vácuo em cima de modelos impressos em 3D. Material e Métodos: Quatorze pacientes, planejados para tratamento ortodôntico fixo, foram divididos aleatoriamente em dois grupos de igual tamanho. Em ambos os grupos, as duas arcadas dentárias foram escaneadas para a criação dos modelos virtuais, os braquetes foram posicionados virtualmente dos incisivos centrais aos segundos pré-molares, e foram feitos os escaneamentos das posições finais dos braquetes. No primeiro grupo, as guias de transferência foram impressas em 3D. No segundo grupo, os modelos virtuais foram impressos em 3D e as guias foram termoformadas a vácuo em cima dos modelos impressos. Os braquetes foram colados de forma indireta e depois feitos os escaneamentos. Uma sobreposição das posições planejadas virtualmente e do escaneamento com os braquetes na posição final foi realizada para medir os desvios lineares e angulares nas posições dos braquetes. Resultados: O primeiro grupo apresentou significativamente menos erros lineares oclusogengivais e vestibulolinguais do que o segundo grupo. Não foram encontradas diferenças significativas nos desvios angulares entre os dois grupos. As frequências de erros lineares clinicamente aceitáveis menores que 0,5 mm e de erros angulares menores que 2° não apresentaram diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os dois grupos (p > 0,05 para todas as medições). Os erros de transferência em ambos os grupos mostraram tendências a desvios lineares nas direções mesial, gengival e labial. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os dois grupos para a taxa de descolagem imediata (10,7% e 7,1% para o primeiro e o segundo grupos, respectivamente, p=0,295). Conclusões: As guias de colagem indireta impressas em 3D foram mais precisas em termos de desvios lineares do que as guias termoformadas a vácuo. Os dois tipos de guias apresentaram controle angular semelhante.

3.
Dental Press J Orthod ; 26(4): e2119146, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34468560

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Maxillary molar distalization is a common approach for correcting dental Class II malocclusions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing the outcomes of maxillary first molar distalization using the Carriere appliance before and after second molar eruption. METHODS: Two groups of patients with dental Class II malocclusions were treated with Carriere distalizer appliance with heavy rectangular mandibular wire and lingual arch for anchorage. Patients of the first group presented unerupted maxillary second molars during the distalization period. In the second group, maxillary second molars were in occlusion on treatment onset. Cone beam computed tomography images were taken at the beginning of treatment and after finishing molar distalization, to compare both groups regarding first molar distalization, intrusion, mesiodistal tipping, buccolingual torquing and rotation, anchorage loss and skeletal changes. Also, the treatment durations were compared. RESULTS: The mean first molar distalization period in the first group (19.2 ± 1.6 weeks) was significantly smaller than the second group (23.3 ± 2.3 weeks). The amount of maxillary first molar distalization was significantly greater, while the amount of rotation was significantly smaller in the first group. No statistically significant differences in the amounts of maxillary first molar intrusion, mesiodistal tipping and buccolingual torquing between both groups was found. Mandibular incisor labiolingual torquing and mandibular first molar mesialization and mesiodistal tipping were significantly greater in the second group. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary first molar distalization before maxillary second molar eruption is more efficient, with less anchorage loss than after second molar eruption.


Asunto(s)
Maloclusión Clase II de Angle , Métodos de Anclaje en Ortodoncia , Cefalometría , Humanos , Maloclusión Clase II de Angle/diagnóstico por imagen , Maloclusión Clase II de Angle/terapia , Maxilar/diagnóstico por imagen , Diente Molar/diagnóstico por imagen , Diseño de Aparato Ortodóncico , Técnicas de Movimiento Dental
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA