Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-03-13, 09:28:55 | version 1.38.0
industry report | Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 2: Indirect bonding though Leone’s JIG and brackets. Figs. 3 & 4: Limitations of the conventional method, such as non-constant accuracy and excess of composite around the base of the attachment. With direct bonding, there is a high margin of error in bracket positioning, due both to the dental professional’s experience and to difficulty with visualisation. The posi- tioning errors that can be made are on the horizontal, vertical and mesiodistal axes, and can create the need to reposition the brackets during orthodontic treatment, resulting in a waste of time. Over the years, indirect posi- tioning techniques have been developed to make posi- tioning more precise and to make the procedure as fast as possible. The aim of this study was to compare a new, digitally assisted method of indirect bonding (Transfer Bite Leone) with the conventional clear two-tray technique, using the split-mouth method to evaluate the amount of remaining composite around the base of the bracket in both procedures. In order to avoid differences due to placement, we used the same dedicated programme for both meth- ods. STL files, obtained from intra-oral arch scanning or stone model scanning, were loaded and processed with the Leone Maestro 3D Ortho Studio software (AGE Solutions). This digital tool permits the segmentation and width and height measurement of the teeth, and the subsequent determination of the long axis and the average height of the clinical crowns, in order to virtually arrange the brackets in the correct position. The den- ortho 1 2018 39