Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

µðÁöÅÐ ¼Â¾÷ ¸ðÇü¿¡¼­ Á¦ÀÛµÈ jig¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ µÎ °¡Áö ºê¶óÄÏ °£Á¢ Á¢Âø ¹æ¹ýÀÇ Á¤È®¼º ºñ±³

Comparison of accuracy of two indirect bonding methods using a jig fabricated from digital setup model

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úÀÇ»çÇùȸÁö 2022³â 60±Ç 5È£ p.258 ~ 268
ÀÌÁ¾Çö, ÃÖµ¿¼ø, ÀåÀλê, Â÷ºÀ±Ù,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÀÌÁ¾Çö ( Lee Jong-Hyeon ) - Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
ÃÖµ¿¼ø ( Choi Dong-Soon ) - Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
ÀåÀλê ( Jang In-San ) - Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics
Â÷ºÀ±Ù ( Cha Bong-Kuen ) - Gangneung-Wonju National University College of Dentistry Department of Orthodontics

Abstract


Aim: To evaluate the accuracy of indirect bonding using a jig fabricated from the digital setup model.

Materials and Methods: Total 120 bracket jigs for the maxillary teeth were fabricated using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) from 10 maxillary digital setup models. Brackets were bonded using the jigs on five models (Group 1), and using the jigs and additional vacuum tray on five models (Group 2). The models were scanned again and superimposed with each initial digital models for evaluation of bonding accuracy.

Results: Indirect bonding using CAD/CAM jigs showed the average bonding error of ¡¾ 0.1 mm at linear measurement and ¡¾ 2.0¡Æat angular measurement except labio-lingual inclination (3.36¡Æ) at the premolar of Group 1. The bonding accuracy were not statistically different between both groups.

Conclusions: CAD/CAM jigs can transfer the bracket to the desired position regardless of whether additional vacuum tray is used or not, and this indirect bonding system provides clinically acceptable accuracy.

Å°¿öµå

Accuracy; Bracket; Bonding; Digital model; Superimposition

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI