Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Comparison of two virtual bracket removal workflows for orthodontic retainer fabrication: surface replacement versus
Chaoran Xue1, Yuxi Zhao1, Shuhan Tang1
1State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, 3rd Section of Renmin Nan Road, Chengdu, 610041, China.
The surface reconstruction (RC) workflow for virtual bracket removal (VBR) is more accurate overall for orthodontic retainer fabrication than the surface replacement (RP) workflow. RC is recommended for routine use due to its consistency and efficiency.
Area of Science:
- Orthodontics
- Dental Technology
- Digital Dentistry
Background:
- Virtual bracket removal (VBR) is crucial for accurate orthodontic retainer fabrication.
- Two VBR workflows, surface reconstruction (RC) and surface replacement (RP), exist.
- Comparing their accuracy is essential for optimizing retainer fabrication.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy of the novel surface replacement (RP) and established surface reconstruction (RC) VBR workflows.
- To evaluate accuracy across digital models, 3D-printed models, and vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs).
- To assess tooth-type-specific performance differences between the workflows.
Main Methods:
- 14 paired pre- and post-treatment dental models were used.
- Post-treatment models with simulated brackets were scanned.
- Scans were processed using both RC and RP workflows to create digital and 3D-printed models.
- VFRs were fabricated, thermoformed, and scanned.
- Surface deviations were measured using root mean square (RMS) values.
Main Results:
- Both RC and RP workflows demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy.
- The RC workflow showed significantly lower deviation on 3D-printed models (RC-P) compared to RP-P.
- RC-CAD performed better on anterior teeth digital models, while RP-CAD showed advantages for posterior teeth.
- Retainers fabricated using RC-P models exhibited significantly more accurate internal fit.
Conclusions:
- Both RC and RP VBR workflows are viable for orthodontic retainer fabrication.
- The RC workflow offers greater overall consistency and is preferable for routine use.
- The RP workflow may offer selective advantages for complex posterior regions, pending future improvements.
