{"title":"虚拟托槽去除技术中不同牙齿类型的最佳设置。","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":" ","pages":"68-74"},"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":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"68-74\"},\"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}","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}
Optimal settings for different tooth types in the virtual bracket removal technique.
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.