Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025
Design of an Open-Source, Low-Cost Bioink and Food Melt Extrusion 3D Printer
Published on: March 2, 2020
Comparison of Two 3D-Printed Indirect Bonding (IDB) Tray Design Versions and Their Influence on the Transfer Accuracy
Julius von Glasenapp1, Eva Hofmann1, Julia Süpple1
1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Charité Center for Oral Health Sciences CC3, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Straße 4-6, 14197 Berlin, Germany.
This study found that two 3D-printed indirect bonding (IDB) tray designs, one with arm-like structures and another with a pocket design, showed similar and accurate transfer of orthodontic brackets. Both designs are suitable for clinical use, with high percentages of linear and angular deviations within acceptable ranges.
Area of Science:
- Orthodontics
- Biomaterials Engineering
- Digital Dentistry
Background:
- Indirect bonding (IDB) is a crucial technique in orthodontics for precise bracket placement.
- 3D printing offers customizable solutions for orthodontic appliances, including IDB trays.
- Different IDB tray designs may influence the accuracy of bracket transfer.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the transfer accuracy of two distinct 3D-printed indirect bonding (IDB) tray designs.
- To evaluate the influence of different bracket retention mechanisms within IDB trays on accuracy.
- To determine the clinical suitability of novel 3D-printed IDB tray designs.
Main Methods:
- Two 3D-printed IDB tray designs (arm-like vs. pocket) were created for 27 patients.
- Brackets were placed in the trays and transferred to plaster models.
- Intraoral scans captured actual bracket positions, compared to virtual planning using specialized software for linear and angular deviation analysis.
Main Results:
- Both 3D-printed IDB tray designs demonstrated comparable and statistically insignificant differences in transfer accuracy (p > 0.05).
- Over 98% of linear deviations for both designs were within the clinically acceptable ±0.2 mm range.
- Approximately 85% of angular deviations were within the ±1° range, with specific directional deviations noted for each design.
Conclusions:
- The investigated 3D-printed IDB tray designs, despite differing retention mechanisms, exhibit good and comparable transfer accuracy.
- Both tray designs are deemed suitable for clinical application in indirect bonding procedures.
- 3D printing technology provides viable options for creating accurate and efficient indirect bonding trays.
