الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract A randomized clinical trial (split-mouth design) was done to compare between the two techniques, 6 patients were enrolled in the study with full sound permanent set of maxillary dentition to allow bonding of 84 orthodontic attachments. The sample size was 84 teeth divided into two equal groups. group I was the intervention group (non-custom base) while group II was the control group (custom base). Impressions were taken to fabricate the working models; then orthodontic attachments were either bonded with water soluble glue representing the intervention group or bonded with composite resin adhesive representing the control group. The orthodontic attachments were bonded to the working model according to the horizontal and vertical reference lines used in the indirect bonding technique. Then, the working model was sprayed with titanium dioxide and scanned with an intraoral scanner to make and STL file of the working model. The transfer tray (vacuum formed soft tray 1.5 mm thickness) was then fabricated in order to carry the orthodontic attachments to the maxillary teeth. The attachments were then transferred to the patient’s dentition where each quadrant represented either non-custom or custom base technique. The chairside time of the clinical procedure was recorded using a stop watch. After tray detachment, the number of failed attachments were recorded and re-bonded again using the same transfer tray. Then a nickel titanium wire 0.012 inch was inserted and ligated to the orthodontic attachments where the number of failed attachments was also recorded. Furthermore, the maxillary teeth were scanned with the same intraoral scanner to make an STL file of the patient’s mouth. Using the Geomagic qualify version 12 software, the two STL files were superimposed and the deviations were detected for seven values, 4 linear measurements (total linear, mesio-distal, occluso-gingival and bucco-lingual) and 3 angular measurements (tip, torque and rotation). |