الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 114 |  |  |
| | | from | 114 | | |
Abstract
Thirty patients from El Minya University’s dental school’s outpatient clinic participated in this research. After completing an intraoral scan of each patient’s data, participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups.
In the first group (Digital indirect bonding), a scanned patient model was virtually adjusted to the appropriate bracket location in 3shape dental studio before being 3D manufactured.
To create a transfer tray from the printed model, a double vacuum tray is used, with the inner tray made of 1 mm soft thermoplastic sheets to provide complete adaption of tray with teeth and the outside tray made of 1.5 mm hard to achieve tight fit.
The bonded brackets were scanned after being moved from the transfer tray to the patient’s mouth so that discrepancies in bracket placement could be identified and corrected in the digital model using Geomagic X.
For the second set, gypsum cast was used to hold the brackets in place. The patient’s cast and brackets were scanned, and then a double tray was made out of the cast and brackets and placed in the patient’s mouth for intraoral scanning. The same software was used to compare the scans of the two models.
The third group (direct bracket bonding) had their mouths scanned and compared to a virtual model, with the same orthodontist positioning the bracket virtually on the model after direct bonding the traditional way according to Tom&Tom guidance table GPS-A (Guide Position Smile Arc higher) the cusp tip to the gingival margin of the maxillary canine crown is the reference.
There was no statistically significant variation in accuracy across the groups.
However, in the mesio-distal direction, group A had more precise findings than both group A and group B in ul3, with a P value of 0.033. With a P value of 0.005 and a P value of 0.006, respectively, in u3 and l1, occluso-gingival group A produced more precise findings than groups B and C. With a P value of 0.006 for u1, a P value of 0.007 for u3, and a P value of 0.001 for ul1, findings from group A in the in-out design were substantially more precise than those from groups B and C. Furthermore, in l5, the P value for group A was 0.002; both groups B and C were substantially less accurate.
Comparison No significant variations in tipping practises were observed between the three groups (P value > 0.05) for any of the analysed items. Showing no significant differences between the three groups in all items of Torque as P value was >0.05. Rotation between three groups, it was revealed that no significant differences between the three groups in all items of Rotation as P value was >0.05.
Conclusion
I. The advantages of direct bonding over indirect bonding
• Indirect bonding required more time and effort but might be useful for an inexperienced orthodontist
• Digital indirect bonding was seen as highly costly because to the scanner, printer, and software required to complete the process.
Chairside (II)
• The chairside procedures were extremely quick, causing little inconvenience to either the patient or the orthodontist.
• It also provides optimal conditions for bonding, especially in the case of second molars.
Benefits of Bonding that Are Not Directly Obtained
Attachments, such as a lingual button, may be bonded in the same session without taking any extra time, and the orthodontist can view more of the tooth surface than they would during direct bracketing, which improves bracket placement even in rotated teeth.
The precision of indirect bracket bonding, whether performed digitally or traditionally, is not noticeably different from that of direct bracket bonding, and the brackets may be bonded quickly and readily in any case.