Optimal settings for different tooth types in the virtual bracket removal technique.

Yipeng Wang, Peiqi Wang, Shiyang Ye, Yu Shi, Yiruo He, Xianglong Han, Ding Bai, Chaoran Xue
{"title":"Optimal settings for different tooth types in the virtual bracket removal technique.","authors":"Yipeng Wang, Peiqi Wang, Shiyang Ye, Yu Shi, Yiruo He, Xianglong Han, Ding Bai, Chaoran Xue","doi":"10.2319/022323-124.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the optimal settings for reconstructing the buccal surfaces of different tooth types using the virtual bracket removal (VBR) technique.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Ten postbonded digital dentitions (with their original prebonded dentitions) were enrolled. The VBR protocol was carried out under five settings from three commonly used computer-aided design (CAD) systems: OrthoAnalyzer (O); Meshmixer (M); and curvature (G2), tangent (G1), and flat (G0) from Geomagic Studio. The root mean squares (RMSs) between the reconstructed and prebonded dentitions were calculated for each tooth and compared with the clinically acceptable limit (CAL) of 0.10 mm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall prevalences of RMSs below the CAL were 66.80%, 70.08%, 62.30%, 94.83%, and 56.15% under O, M, G2, G1, and G0, respectively. For the upper dentition, the mean RMSs were significantly lower than the CAL for all tooth types under G1 and upper incisors and canines under M and G2. For the lower dentition, the mean RMSs were significantly lower than the CAL for all tooth types under G1 and lower incisors and canines under M, G2, and G0 (all P < .05). Additionally, the mean RMSs of all teeth under G1 were significantly lower than those under the other settings (all P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The optimal settings varied among different tooth types. G1 performed best for most tooth types compared to the other four settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928942/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/022323-124.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the optimal settings for reconstructing the buccal surfaces of different tooth types using the virtual bracket removal (VBR) technique.

Materials and methods: Ten postbonded digital dentitions (with their original prebonded dentitions) were enrolled. The VBR protocol was carried out under five settings from three commonly used computer-aided design (CAD) systems: OrthoAnalyzer (O); Meshmixer (M); and curvature (G2), tangent (G1), and flat (G0) from Geomagic Studio. The root mean squares (RMSs) between the reconstructed and prebonded dentitions were calculated for each tooth and compared with the clinically acceptable limit (CAL) of 0.10 mm.

Results: The overall prevalences of RMSs below the CAL were 66.80%, 70.08%, 62.30%, 94.83%, and 56.15% under O, M, G2, G1, and G0, respectively. For the upper dentition, the mean RMSs were significantly lower than the CAL for all tooth types under G1 and upper incisors and canines under M and G2. For the lower dentition, the mean RMSs were significantly lower than the CAL for all tooth types under G1 and lower incisors and canines under M, G2, and G0 (all P < .05). Additionally, the mean RMSs of all teeth under G1 were significantly lower than those under the other settings (all P < .001).

Conclusions: The optimal settings varied among different tooth types. G1 performed best for most tooth types compared to the other four settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚拟托槽去除技术中不同牙齿类型的最佳设置。
目的:确定使用虚拟托槽去除(VBR)技术重建不同牙齿类型颊表面的最佳设置。材料和方法:10个后粘结的指牙列(及其原始的前粘结牙列)被纳入研究。VBR协议是在三个常用的计算机辅助设计(CAD)系统的五种设置下执行的:OrthoAnalyzer(O);网格混合器(M);以及Geomagic Studio中的曲率(G2)、切线(G1)和平面(G0)。计算每颗牙齿的重建牙列和预粘结牙列之间的均方根(RMSs),并与0.10mm的临床可接受限度(CAL)进行比较。结果:在O、M、G2、G1和G0下,低于CAL的RMSs的总体患病率分别为66.80%、70.08%、62.30%、94.83%和56.15%。对于上牙列,G1下的所有牙齿类型以及M和G2下的上切牙和犬齿的平均RMS均显著低于CAL。对于下牙列,G1下的所有牙齿类型以及M、G2和G0下的下切牙和犬齿的平均RMS均显著低于CAL(均P<0.05)。此外,G1下所有牙齿的平均RMs均显著低于其他设置下的平均RMSs(均P<0.01)。结论:不同牙齿类型的最佳设置不同。与其他四种设置相比,G1在大多数齿型中表现最好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of the effect of clear twin block and traditional twin block on speech: a randomized clinical trial. Evaluation of automated photograph-cephalogram image integration using artificial intelligence models. More molar distal movement than pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography posterior space available at the root level in mandibular dentition distalization with microimplants. 3D printed indirect bonding trays: transfer accuracy of bar vs shell design in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Correlations of spheno-occipital synchondrosis, cervical vertebrae, midpalatal suture, and third molar maturation stages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1