Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study
Objectives This study examines accuracy of dental impressions and following plaster models taken during treatment with fixed appliances. Materials and methods A maxillary typodont was provided with brackets. Three examiners took impressions three times each of the variants: brackets only, archwire f...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral investigations 2016-03, Vol.20 (2), p.365-372 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 372 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 365 |
| container_title | Clinical oral investigations |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Wriedt, Susanne Foersch, Moritz Muhle, Jan Daniel Schmidtmann, Irene Wehrbein, Heinrich |
| description | Objectives
This study examines accuracy of dental impressions and following plaster models taken during treatment with fixed appliances.
Materials and methods
A maxillary typodont was provided with brackets. Three examiners took impressions three times each of the variants: brackets only, archwire fixed by alastics, ligatures or Kobayashi-hooks, and brackets and archwire covered completely or just on the gingival side by protection or impression wax. Casts were scanned using Activity102
®
. Virtual models were compared to the scan of the typodont using Comparison
®
. Differences were measured and descriptively analyzed. Estimated means with 95 % confidence intervals were computed. Significance was assessed using linear mixed models.
Results
While pyramidal reference blocks had a mean difference of 0.019 mm (95 % CI = 0.017–0.021 mm) to the master model, teeth without attachments showed 0.097 mm (95 % CI = 0.082–0.111 mm), and teeth with brackets 0.169 mm (95 % CI = 0.156–0.182 mm) (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1767913399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3973524921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-6b610c90c84c5095b64d48eef4f6996a8c2e61d33d5797443713e580d263a47e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1rFzEQxoMo9kU_gBdZ8OIlmtlkk01vpdhaqHjRc8gmszXtvjXZpfxvXnv3E_pJmu3WIoIwZAbm9zwZeAh5A-wDMKY-pvzUgjKoKFQgqHhG9kFwSblS8PxhLqnUNeyRg5SuGAMhFX9J9kqZ9XXJ9sntl6WbQxOtu8a5sNPUBTs4PCpCP0VMKYxD4bG1mUqFHXwx_8AQi4h-cfO6bHZF043uOgyXdFzm3z_vHurXNtjMR0TqQ4_Dama7Is2L370iL1rbJXz92A_J99NP304-04uvZ-cnxxfUCVHOVDb5UqeZq4WrmK4aKbyoEVvRSq2lrV2JEjznvlJaCcEVcKxq5kvJrVDID8n7zXeK482CaTZ9SA67zg44LsmAkkoD51pn9N0_6NW4xHzxSilgEkpZZwo2ysUxpYitmWLobdwZYGZNxWypmJyKWVMxImvePjovTY_-SfEnhgyUG5DyarjE-NfX_3W9By0HnFY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1771061268</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Wriedt, Susanne ; Foersch, Moritz ; Muhle, Jan Daniel ; Schmidtmann, Irene ; Wehrbein, Heinrich</creator><creatorcontrib>Wriedt, Susanne ; Foersch, Moritz ; Muhle, Jan Daniel ; Schmidtmann, Irene ; Wehrbein, Heinrich</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
This study examines accuracy of dental impressions and following plaster models taken during treatment with fixed appliances.
Materials and methods
A maxillary typodont was provided with brackets. Three examiners took impressions three times each of the variants: brackets only, archwire fixed by alastics, ligatures or Kobayashi-hooks, and brackets and archwire covered completely or just on the gingival side by protection or impression wax. Casts were scanned using Activity102
®
. Virtual models were compared to the scan of the typodont using Comparison
®
. Differences were measured and descriptively analyzed. Estimated means with 95 % confidence intervals were computed. Significance was assessed using linear mixed models.
Results
While pyramidal reference blocks had a mean difference of 0.019 mm (95 % CI = 0.017–0.021 mm) to the master model, teeth without attachments showed 0.097 mm (95 % CI = 0.082–0.111 mm), and teeth with brackets 0.169 mm (95 % CI = 0.156–0.182 mm) (
p
< 0.001). Smallest mean was found when using protection wax only on the gingival bracket side (0.152 mm (95 % CI = 0.113–0.192 mm)). Incisors deviated most (0.258 mm (95 % CI = 0.239–0.277 mm)).
Conclusions
Teeth with brackets make impressions more inaccurate because of undercuts. Removing the archwire before taking the impression or covering the brackets on the gingival side shows tendencies toward better precision.
Clinical relevance
Taking impressions during treatment with fixed appliances, some inaccuracy has to be taken into account.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-6981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-3771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26100820</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Computer-Aided Design ; Dental Impression Materials ; Dental Impression Technique ; Dental Models ; Dentistry ; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy ; Germany ; Humans ; Medicine ; Original Article ; Orthodontic Brackets ; Orthodontic Wires ; Software</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral investigations, 2016-03, Vol.20 (2), p.365-372</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-6b610c90c84c5095b64d48eef4f6996a8c2e61d33d5797443713e580d263a47e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-6b610c90c84c5095b64d48eef4f6996a8c2e61d33d5797443713e580d263a47e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26100820$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wriedt, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foersch, Moritz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhle, Jan Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidtmann, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wehrbein, Heinrich</creatorcontrib><title>Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study</title><title>Clinical oral investigations</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Invest</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><description>Objectives
This study examines accuracy of dental impressions and following plaster models taken during treatment with fixed appliances.
Materials and methods
A maxillary typodont was provided with brackets. Three examiners took impressions three times each of the variants: brackets only, archwire fixed by alastics, ligatures or Kobayashi-hooks, and brackets and archwire covered completely or just on the gingival side by protection or impression wax. Casts were scanned using Activity102
®
. Virtual models were compared to the scan of the typodont using Comparison
®
. Differences were measured and descriptively analyzed. Estimated means with 95 % confidence intervals were computed. Significance was assessed using linear mixed models.
Results
While pyramidal reference blocks had a mean difference of 0.019 mm (95 % CI = 0.017–0.021 mm) to the master model, teeth without attachments showed 0.097 mm (95 % CI = 0.082–0.111 mm), and teeth with brackets 0.169 mm (95 % CI = 0.156–0.182 mm) (
p
< 0.001). Smallest mean was found when using protection wax only on the gingival bracket side (0.152 mm (95 % CI = 0.113–0.192 mm)). Incisors deviated most (0.258 mm (95 % CI = 0.239–0.277 mm)).
Conclusions
Teeth with brackets make impressions more inaccurate because of undercuts. Removing the archwire before taking the impression or covering the brackets on the gingival side shows tendencies toward better precision.
Clinical relevance
Taking impressions during treatment with fixed appliances, some inaccuracy has to be taken into account.</description><subject>Computer-Aided Design</subject><subject>Dental Impression Materials</subject><subject>Dental Impression Technique</subject><subject>Dental Models</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Dimensional Measurement Accuracy</subject><subject>Germany</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Orthodontic Brackets</subject><subject>Orthodontic Wires</subject><subject>Software</subject><issn>1432-6981</issn><issn>1436-3771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU1rFzEQxoMo9kU_gBdZ8OIlmtlkk01vpdhaqHjRc8gmszXtvjXZpfxvXnv3E_pJmu3WIoIwZAbm9zwZeAh5A-wDMKY-pvzUgjKoKFQgqHhG9kFwSblS8PxhLqnUNeyRg5SuGAMhFX9J9kqZ9XXJ9sntl6WbQxOtu8a5sNPUBTs4PCpCP0VMKYxD4bG1mUqFHXwx_8AQi4h-cfO6bHZF043uOgyXdFzm3z_vHurXNtjMR0TqQ4_Dama7Is2L370iL1rbJXz92A_J99NP304-04uvZ-cnxxfUCVHOVDb5UqeZq4WrmK4aKbyoEVvRSq2lrV2JEjznvlJaCcEVcKxq5kvJrVDID8n7zXeK482CaTZ9SA67zg44LsmAkkoD51pn9N0_6NW4xHzxSilgEkpZZwo2ysUxpYitmWLobdwZYGZNxWypmJyKWVMxImvePjovTY_-SfEnhgyUG5DyarjE-NfX_3W9By0HnFY</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Wriedt, Susanne</creator><creator>Foersch, Moritz</creator><creator>Muhle, Jan Daniel</creator><creator>Schmidtmann, Irene</creator><creator>Wehrbein, Heinrich</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study</title><author>Wriedt, Susanne ; Foersch, Moritz ; Muhle, Jan Daniel ; Schmidtmann, Irene ; Wehrbein, Heinrich</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-6b610c90c84c5095b64d48eef4f6996a8c2e61d33d5797443713e580d263a47e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Computer-Aided Design</topic><topic>Dental Impression Materials</topic><topic>Dental Impression Technique</topic><topic>Dental Models</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Dimensional Measurement Accuracy</topic><topic>Germany</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Orthodontic Brackets</topic><topic>Orthodontic Wires</topic><topic>Software</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wriedt, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foersch, Moritz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhle, Jan Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidtmann, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wehrbein, Heinrich</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wriedt, Susanne</au><au>Foersch, Moritz</au><au>Muhle, Jan Daniel</au><au>Schmidtmann, Irene</au><au>Wehrbein, Heinrich</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle><stitle>Clin Oral Invest</stitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>365</spage><epage>372</epage><pages>365-372</pages><issn>1432-6981</issn><eissn>1436-3771</eissn><abstract>Objectives
This study examines accuracy of dental impressions and following plaster models taken during treatment with fixed appliances.
Materials and methods
A maxillary typodont was provided with brackets. Three examiners took impressions three times each of the variants: brackets only, archwire fixed by alastics, ligatures or Kobayashi-hooks, and brackets and archwire covered completely or just on the gingival side by protection or impression wax. Casts were scanned using Activity102
®
. Virtual models were compared to the scan of the typodont using Comparison
®
. Differences were measured and descriptively analyzed. Estimated means with 95 % confidence intervals were computed. Significance was assessed using linear mixed models.
Results
While pyramidal reference blocks had a mean difference of 0.019 mm (95 % CI = 0.017–0.021 mm) to the master model, teeth without attachments showed 0.097 mm (95 % CI = 0.082–0.111 mm), and teeth with brackets 0.169 mm (95 % CI = 0.156–0.182 mm) (
p
< 0.001). Smallest mean was found when using protection wax only on the gingival bracket side (0.152 mm (95 % CI = 0.113–0.192 mm)). Incisors deviated most (0.258 mm (95 % CI = 0.239–0.277 mm)).
Conclusions
Teeth with brackets make impressions more inaccurate because of undercuts. Removing the archwire before taking the impression or covering the brackets on the gingival side shows tendencies toward better precision.
Clinical relevance
Taking impressions during treatment with fixed appliances, some inaccuracy has to be taken into account.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>26100820</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1432-6981 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral investigations, 2016-03, Vol.20 (2), p.365-372 |
| issn | 1432-6981 1436-3771 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1767913399 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Computer-Aided Design Dental Impression Materials Dental Impression Technique Dental Models Dentistry Dimensional Measurement Accuracy Germany Humans Medicine Original Article Orthodontic Brackets Orthodontic Wires Software |
| title | Multibracket appliance: impression defaults and their reduction by blocking-out — a three-dimensional study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T07%3A42%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multibracket%20appliance:%20impression%20defaults%20and%20their%20reduction%20by%20blocking-out%E2%80%89%E2%80%89%E2%80%94%E2%80%89%E2%80%89a%20three-dimensional%20study&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20investigations&rft.au=Wriedt,%20Susanne&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=365&rft.epage=372&rft.pages=365-372&rft.issn=1432-6981&rft.eissn=1436-3771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00784-015-1514-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3973524921%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1771061268&rft_id=info:pmid/26100820&rfr_iscdi=true |