有无射线支持下支架轴向定位精度的比较,以及根据从业者经验进行的比较:三维研究。

IF 2.6 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.03.007
{"title":"有无射线支持下支架轴向定位精度的比较,以及根据从业者经验进行的比较:三维研究。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Accurate bracket positioning remains challenging. To avoid angulation errors, some recommend examining the panoramic radiograph during bonding. However, it can cause distortions. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides a more precise panoramic reconstruction but with higher radiation doses. The main objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of axial positioning between direct bonding without radiography, with conventional panoramic radiograph, and with panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. The secondary objectives are to evaluate positioning accuracy of each tooth and to assess the influence of practitioner level of experience.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Thirty practitioners, divided into two groups based on their experience performed direct bonding on a model thrice: without radiography, then with the conventional panoramic radiograph, then with the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. Models were scanned, and angulation errors were measured using OrthoAnalyzer. Values were compared using the Friedman's test followed by the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (<em>P</em>-value = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For the low level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly greater than the accepted limit without radiographic reference, and significantly lower with CBCT reconstruction. For the high level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly lower than the accepted limit for the three bonding methods. For every tooth, using the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT as a reference, was the most accurate method, regardless of the level of experience. More experienced practitioners made fewer errors for the three methods.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Panoramic reconstruction from CBCT is the most accurate method to limit angulation errors during direct bonding. Conventional panoramic radiography remains a reliable tool if used with caution. Bonding without any radiographic reference should be avoided especially for less experienced practitioners.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":"13 5","pages":"Pages 199-210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the accuracy of bracket axial positioning with and without radiographic support and according to practitioner experience: A three-dimensional study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.03.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Accurate bracket positioning remains challenging. To avoid angulation errors, some recommend examining the panoramic radiograph during bonding. However, it can cause distortions. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides a more precise panoramic reconstruction but with higher radiation doses. The main objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of axial positioning between direct bonding without radiography, with conventional panoramic radiograph, and with panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. The secondary objectives are to evaluate positioning accuracy of each tooth and to assess the influence of practitioner level of experience.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Thirty practitioners, divided into two groups based on their experience performed direct bonding on a model thrice: without radiography, then with the conventional panoramic radiograph, then with the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. Models were scanned, and angulation errors were measured using OrthoAnalyzer. Values were compared using the Friedman's test followed by the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (<em>P</em>-value = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For the low level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly greater than the accepted limit without radiographic reference, and significantly lower with CBCT reconstruction. For the high level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly lower than the accepted limit for the three bonding methods. For every tooth, using the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT as a reference, was the most accurate method, regardless of the level of experience. More experienced practitioners made fewer errors for the three methods.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Panoramic reconstruction from CBCT is the most accurate method to limit angulation errors during direct bonding. Conventional panoramic radiography remains a reliable tool if used with caution. Bonding without any radiographic reference should be avoided especially for less experienced practitioners.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists\",\"volume\":\"13 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 199-210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212443824000201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212443824000201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:精确的托槽定位仍然具有挑战性。为了避免角度误差,有人建议在粘接时检查全景照片。然而,这可能会导致变形。锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)可提供更精确的全景重建,但辐射剂量较高。本研究的主要目的是比较无放射线照相直接粘接、传统全景放射线照相和CBCT全景重建之间的轴向定位精度。次要目标是评估每颗牙齿的定位精度,并评估从业者经验水平的影响:根据经验分为两组的 30 名牙科医生对模型进行了三次直接粘接:先是不进行射线照相,然后进行传统全景照相,最后进行 CBCT 全景重建。扫描模型,使用 OrthoAnalyzer 测量角度误差。使用弗里德曼检验比较数值,然后使用 Bonferroni 校正进行多重比较(P 值 = 0.05):结果:低经验组的角度误差在没有放射线参考的情况下明显大于公认的极限,而在 CBCT 重建的情况下则明显降低。对于高经验组,三种粘接方法的角度误差都明显低于公认的限值。对于每颗牙齿,无论经验水平如何,使用 CBCT 全景重建作为参考都是最准确的方法。在这三种方法中,经验更丰富的医生出错更少:结论:CBCT全景重建是限制直接粘接过程中角度误差的最准确方法。如果谨慎使用,传统的全景放射摄影仍然是一种可靠的工具。应避免在没有任何射线参考的情况下进行粘接,尤其是经验不足的医生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of the accuracy of bracket axial positioning with and without radiographic support and according to practitioner experience: A three-dimensional study

Introduction

Accurate bracket positioning remains challenging. To avoid angulation errors, some recommend examining the panoramic radiograph during bonding. However, it can cause distortions. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides a more precise panoramic reconstruction but with higher radiation doses. The main objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of axial positioning between direct bonding without radiography, with conventional panoramic radiograph, and with panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. The secondary objectives are to evaluate positioning accuracy of each tooth and to assess the influence of practitioner level of experience.

Methods

Thirty practitioners, divided into two groups based on their experience performed direct bonding on a model thrice: without radiography, then with the conventional panoramic radiograph, then with the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. Models were scanned, and angulation errors were measured using OrthoAnalyzer. Values were compared using the Friedman's test followed by the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (P-value = 0.05).

Results

For the low level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly greater than the accepted limit without radiographic reference, and significantly lower with CBCT reconstruction. For the high level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly lower than the accepted limit for the three bonding methods. For every tooth, using the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT as a reference, was the most accurate method, regardless of the level of experience. More experienced practitioners made fewer errors for the three methods.

Conclusions

Panoramic reconstruction from CBCT is the most accurate method to limit angulation errors during direct bonding. Conventional panoramic radiography remains a reliable tool if used with caution. Bonding without any radiographic reference should be avoided especially for less experienced practitioners.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists
Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Microplastics and orthodontic aligners: The concerns arising from the modernization of practice through polymers and plastics. Assessment of coated orthodontic miniscrews with chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate antimicrobial nanoparticles: A randomized clinical trial. Protraction of a mandibular second molar into the adjacent atrophic first-molar extraction site with ridge-split technique through clear aligners: A case report. Automated dentition segmentation: 3D UNet-based approach with MIScnn framework. In vitro physical properties and clinical stability of reused orthodontic miniscrews: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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