الفهرس 
Table of ContentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 166 |  |  |
| | | from | 166 | | |
Abstract
Objectives:This split-mouth randomized controlled trial was done to measure and compare the transfer accuracy of computer-aided versus traditional bracket placement for indirect bondingtechnique. Martial and methods: Fifteen patients hadparticipatedin this study. Two IDB techniques were used; traditional (method I) and computer-aided (method II) techniques. For method I; brackets were bonded to two opposite quadrants on the models. The models were then scanned with intraoral scanner. While for method II; digitalized data were obtained from each patient by scanning for virtual bracket placement on the alternative quadrants. Quadrants were then printed with the brackets in their planned positions. Double vacuum transfer trays were pressed over each quadrant to transfer all the brackets to teeth. Bracket positions were rescanned after the IDB procedure. The post-transfer bracket positions were compared to their pre-transfer positions by digital software.Linear and angular discrepancies were then digitally determined by measuring six different dimensions; occlusocervical, mesiodistal, buccolingual, tip, rotation, and torque. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the transfer accuracy of computer-aided and traditional IDB. For all the six linear and angular dimensions, most of the bracket discrepancies were within the clinically accepted range+/-0.05mm linearly and +/-2.0◦ angularly. Conclusion: Although both IDBtechniques used in this study transferred the planned bracket positions to the dentition with high precision; computer-aided technique scored better in terms of transfer accuracy than the traditional technique with no statistically significant difference between them. However, both techniquescould be considered reliable for IDB.