Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparison of bracket bonding between two CAD/CAM guided bonding devices: GBD-U vs GBD-B
Peiqi Wang1, Wanyan Li1, Bin Li1
1State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University Chengdu 610041, China.
Objective:
To compare the bracket bonding accuracy, efficiency, reproducibility, and three-dimensional (3D) printing duration of the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) unilateral contact guided bonding device (GBD-U) and the bilateral contact guided bonding device (GBD-B) in vitro.
Methods:
Five resin dental model sets were scanned and virtually bonded with brackets. GBD-U and GBD-B were designed and 3D printed for each model. GBD-Us had guide blocks that fit the occlusal sides of the bracket tie-wings, while GBD-Bs had guide arms that fit the occlusal and distal sides of the tie-wings. Five orthodontic residents were recruited to bond brackets on the same 3D-printed copies of resin models in a dental mannequin using GBD-Us and GBD-Bs, respectively. The time for 3D printing of GBDs and bracket bonding was recorded. The linear and angular deviations between the bonded brackets and the virtually bonded ones were measured.
Results:
A total of 50 sets of resin models (1000 brackets/tubes) were bonded. The time for 3D printing and bracket bonding was shorter for GBD-Us (41.96 mins/6.38 mins) than for GBD-Bs (78.04 mins/7.20 mins). In both devices, 100% linear deviations and over 95% angular deviations were below 0.5 mm or 2°, respectively. Deviations in the mesiodistal dimension, torque, angulation, and rotation were significantly lower in the GBD-U group (P<0.01). High inter-operator reproducibility of bracket bonding was confirmed for both devices.
Conclusion:
GBD-U was more time-efficient in 3D printing. Both GBDs showed clinically acceptable accuracy, whereas GBD-U had higher bonding accuracy in the mesiodistal dimension, torque, angulation, and rotation than GBD-B.
Clinical Significance:
CAD/CAM GBD-U provides high bracket bonding accuracy in a time-efficient manner and has the potential to be clinically applied.
