Comparison of the accuracy of bracket axial positioning with and without radiographic support and according to practitioner experience: A three-dimensional study

• Published in: Journal of the world federation of orthodontists 2024-10, Vol.13 (5), p.199-210
• Main Authors: Saliba, Tatiana, Khoury, Elie, Aboujaoude, Rami, Kassis, Adib
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bracket Placement; Clinical Competence; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods; Dentistry; Direct bonding; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Panoramic radiograph; Precision; Radiography, Panoramic - methods
• ISSN: 2212-4438; 2212-4438
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.03.007

•To compare the accuracy of axial positioning between direct bonding without radiography, with conventional panoramic radiograph, and with panoramic reconstruction from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).•Ninety duplicates of a model were mounted on a mannequin head.•Thirty practitioners, divided into two groups based on their experience performed direct bonding thrice.•Superimposition to the CBCT followed, and angulation errors were measured using OrthoAnalyzer.•Panoramic reconstruction from CBCT is the most accurate method to limit angulation errors. Not using radiographic reference should be avoided especially for less experienced practitioners. Accurate bracket positioning remains challenging. To avoid angulation errors, some recommend examining the panoramic radiograph during bonding. However, it can cause distortions. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) provides a more precise panoramic reconstruction but with higher radiation doses. The main objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of axial positioning between direct bonding without radiography, with conventional panoramic radiograph, and with panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. The secondary objectives are to evaluate positioning accuracy of each tooth and to assess the influence of practitioner level of experience. Thirty practitioners, divided into two groups based on their experience performed direct bonding on a model thrice: without radiography, then with the conventional panoramic radiograph, then with the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT. Models were scanned, and angulation errors were measured using OrthoAnalyzer. Values were compared using the Friedman's test followed by the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (P-value = 0.05). For the low level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly greater than the accepted limit without radiographic reference, and significantly lower with CBCT reconstruction. For the high level of experience group, angulation errors were significantly lower than the accepted limit for the three bonding methods. For every tooth, using the panoramic reconstruction from CBCT as a reference, was the most accurate method, regardless of the level of experience. More experienced practitioners made fewer errors for the three methods. Panoramic reconstruction from CBCT is the most accurate method to limit angulation errors during direct bonding. Conventional panoramic radiography remains a reliable tool if used with caution. Bonding w