The Validity of Customized Orthodontic Bracket Set up (Randomized Clinical Trial)
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Sponsor
- Enrollment
- 30
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) scoring
Study Overview
Brief Summary
CAD/CAM systems have assisted orthodontists in planning and positioning brackets to minimize errors and improve the excellence of treatment. This study aimed to validate measurements obtained from manual and digital systems, as well as evaluate the effectiveness, and periodontal changes that occurred after the treatment. Materials and Methods: This study is a prospective randomized controlled trial, in which clinical evaluation of virtual setup (digital and manual) techniques versus CAD/CAM brackets (Ormco© Insignia™ .022" twin brackets) in terms of expression of bracket prescription and treatment outcome. The sample consisted of 30 young adults with Angle Class I malocclusion. Cone beam computer tomography (CBCT) were obtained before and after the treatment to assess the parallelism between the dental roots and periodontal conditions. Digital impression by three dimensional (3D) intraoral scans (IOS) will be obtained for all participants. The 3D models are converted to stereolithography (STL) for all groups. The sample will be dividing randomly into three groups; the first one treated with CAD/CAM brackets (Ormco© Insignia™ .022" twin brackets), while the other two groups were treated by customization of bracket base of the conventional pre-adjusted twin bracket with orthodontic adhesive material, this will be done through planning and creating the virtual setup by using Maestro® 3D Ortho Studio software. The Indirect bonding devices for the second group will manufacturing from 3D printed models while third group from the manual double-layer vacuum-formed thermoplastic trays. All patients will treat with fixed orthodontic twin brackets appliances. The 3D models of the Virtual setup are comparing with the treated occlusion. The linear and angular measurements are performing by the Geomagic® software and using the 3Shape's Ortho-Analyzer TM software in all groups to assess the American Board of Orthodontics grading system scores. Random errors are assessing by Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and method errors. Descriptive statistical analysis, Shapiro-Wilk test to detect the normality of variable distribution and the Chi-square test evaluated whether the ABO scores measurements are within the limits of agreement of each criterion. ABO scores between both groups are analyze by using Wilcoxon test. The Bland-Altman analysis evaluated if differences are within the limits of agreement.
Detailed Description
Introduction Treatment efficiency has become an increasingly important goal of orthodontic treatment, yet basic questions about the efficiency of bracket system remain. In contemporary preadjusted edgewise orthodontic appliance, the greatest challenge in the success of orthodontic therapy depends undoubtedly on the perfection in bracket design, prescription, and its positioning in addition to the orthodontist's skill and training. However, due to uneven and dissimilar tooth surface anatomy, the need for an accurate method of bracket positioning with pre-determined torque and angulation incorporated in the brackets according to the patients' need is of key importance.
Therefore, it is valuable to know, dose digital bracket setting offers better outcomes? Previously, indirect bracket positioning technique was done using plaster dental cast where kesling setting (teeth alignment) made using the clinical crown. However, recently digital technique was used to assess teeth setting and bracket positioning acknowledging root positioning using typodonts.
Null hypothesis:
There is no difference between the CAD/CAM brackets setting technique (Ormco© Insignia™ .022" twin brackets) and virtual (digital and manual) bracket setting technique regarding to treatment efficiency and root positioning.
Aim and Objectives: The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of the virtual digital / manual setup technique compared to indirect bonded CAD/CAM brackets (Insignia™ twin brackets) in terms of expression of bracket prescription and treatment outcome using American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) scoring.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Parallel
- Primary Purpose
- Treatment
- Masking
- Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 15 Years to 30 Years (Child, Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- Yes
Inclusion Criteria
- •Class 1 malocclusion.
- •Non-extraction treatment plan.
- •Initial Little Index between 5-10 mm.
- •Presence of all permanent teeth.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Any systemic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension.
- •Sound or clicking in temporomandibular joint or craniofacial syndromes.
- •Periodontal disease or pockets greater than 4mm.
- •Incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA) ≥ 100 degrees; or any anterior tooth completely blocked from the arch form
Arms & Interventions
CAD/CAM Insignia™ brackets
The result from this group (10 patients) considered as a gold standard for other two groups through assessing the treatment outcomes using American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) scoring.
Intervention: Insignia™ twin brackets (Device)
Software-driven indirect bonding tray
The first comparison group (10 patients): digital setup, virtual bracket placement and creation of 3D printing indirect bounding tray by using Maestro® 3D Ortho Studio software.
Intervention: Maestro® 3D Ortho Studio software (Discovery, Dentaurum®, Ispringen, Germany) (Device)
Manual-driven indirect bonding tray
the second comparison group (10 patients): digital setup by using Maestro® 3D Ortho Studio software, but the bracket positioning done manually by using Ray Set® device. in this group using double-layer vacuum-formed thermoplastic indirect bonding tray.
Intervention: Ray set® device (Discovery, Dentaurum®, Ispringen, Germany) (Device)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) scoring
Time Frame: 18 months
scoring system consist of 8 items: 1. Alignment, 2. Marginal ridge height, 3. Buccolingual inclination, 4. Overjet, 5. Occlusal contacts, 6. Occlusal relationships, 7. Interproximal contacts (1-7) Component: scores \< 0.5 = 0. 0.5 to 1 mm =1. \> 1 mm = 2. 8. Root angulation: Root parallelism = 0. Roots are not parallel = 1. Contacting adjacent tooth = 2. High scores on individual segments, or combinations of individual segments, may cause a case to become Incomplete. SO: the minimum value = 0 the maximum value = 16 the high score means = worse outcome the low score means = better outcome
Secondary Outcomes
- linear and angular measurement of the bracket position(4 months)
Investigators
Ammar Alubaydi
clinical and lab investigator (orthodontist, PhD student)
University of Baghdad
