Objectives: To compare the transfer accuracy of two different three-dimensional printed trays (Dreve FotoDent ITB [Dreve Dentamid, Unna, Germany] and NextDent Ortho ITB [NextDent, Soesterberg, the Netherlands]) to polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) trays for indirect bonding. Materials and Methods: A total of 10 dental models were constructed for each investigated material. Virtual bracket placement was performed on a scanned dental model using OnyxCeph (OnyxCeph 3D Lab, Chemnitz, Germany). Three-dimensional printed transfer trays using a digital light processing system three-dimensional printer and silicone transfer trays were produced. Bracket positions were scanned after the indirect bonding procedure. Linear and angular transfer errors were measured. Significant differences between mean transfer errors and frequency of clinically acceptable errors (<0.25 mm/1°) were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and χ ² tests, respectively. Results: All trays showed comparable accuracy of bracket placement. NextDent exhibited a significantly higher frequency of rotational error within the limit of 1° ( P = .01) compared with the PVS tray. Although PVS showed significant differences between the tooth groups in all linear dimensions, Dreve exhibited a significant difference in the buccolingual direction only. All groups showed a similar distribution of directional bias. Conclusions: Three-dimensional printed trays achieved comparable results with the PVS trays in terms of bracket positioning accuracy. NextDent appears to be inferior compared with PVS regarding the frequency of clinically acceptable errors, whereas Dreve was found to be equal. The influence of tooth groups on the accuracy of bracket positioning may be reduced by using an appropriate three-dimensional printed transfer tray (Dreve).

Purpose: To investigate the bracket transfer accuracy of the indirect bonding technique (IDB). Methods: Systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus through November 2021. Selection Criteria: In vivo and ex vivo studies investigating bracket transfer accuracy by comparing the planned and achieved bracket positions using the IDB technique were considered. Information concerning patients, samples, and applied methodology was collected. Measured mean transfer errors (MTE) for angular and linear directions were extracted. Risk of bias (RoB) in the studies was assessed using a tailored RoB tool. Meta-analysis of ex vivo studies was performed for overall linear and angular bracket transfer accuracy and for subgroup analyses by type of tray, tooth groups, jaw-related, side-related, and by assessment method. Results: A total of 16 studies met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The overall linear mean transfer errors (MTE) in mesiodistal, vertical and buccolingual direction were 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.10), 0.09 mm (0.06; 0.11), 0.14 mm (0.10; 0.17), respectively. The overall angular mean transfer errors (MTE) regarding angulation, rotation, torque were 1.13° (0.75; 1.52), 0.93° (0.49; 1.37), and 1.11° (0.68; 1.53), respectively. Silicone trays showed the highest accuracy, followed by vacuum-formed trays and 3D printed trays. Subgroup analyses between tooth groups, right and left sides, and upper and lower jaw showed minor differences. Conclusions and implications: The overall accuracy of the indirect bonding technique can be considered clinically acceptable. Future studies should address the validation of the accuracy assessment methods used.

Background: The clinical outcome of aligner therapy is closely related to the precision of its setup, which can be manually or digitally fabricated. The aim of the study is to investigate the suitability of manual setups made for aligner therapy in terms of the precision of tooth movements. Methods: Six dental technicians were instructed to adjust each of eleven duplicate plaster casts of a patient models as follows: a 1 mm pure vestibular translation of tooth 11 and a 15° pure mesial rotation of tooth 23. The processed setup models were 3D scanned and matched with the reference model. The one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05) was used for evaluation. Results: The overall precision of the translational movement covers a wide range of values from 0.25 to 2.26 mm (median: 1.09 mm). The target value for the rotation of tooth 23 was achieved with a median rotation of 9.76° in the apical-occlusal direction. Unwanted movements in the other planes also accompanied the rotation. Conclusions: A manual setup can only be fabricated with limited precision. Besides the very high variability between technicians, additional unwanted movements in other spatial planes occurred. Manually fabricated setups should not be favored for aligner therapy due to limited precision.

Objectives: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two intraoral digital X-ray sensors—the charged-coupled device (CCD) and complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS)—for proximal caries detection in permanent molar and premolar teeth. Micro-CT served as the reference standard. Methods: 250 samples were mounted in three-dimensional (3D)-printed phantoms, and their proximal surfaces were evaluated by ICDAS criteria directly to create a balanced sample. Bitewing radiography was conducted using 3D-constructed X-ray phantoms with a CCD sensor at a 0.08 s and a CMOS sensor at 0.12 and 0.16 s exposure time. Two examiners determined the diagnostic decisions twice at appropriate intervals. Three diagnostic thresholds for sound surfaces and enamel and dentin caries were defined and presented in a cross-table. Sensitivity and specificity values and overall accuracy were calculated, and receiver operating curves were generated and compared. Reliability assessment was performed using linear weighted κ statistics. Results: The overall accuracies between the reference standard and different sensors and exposure times were 63.1% (CCD), 67.1% (CMOS sensor at 0.12 s) and 70.7% (CMOS sensor at 0.08 s). High specificity but low sensitivity values were found for all examination conditions at all thresholds. The area under the curve comparison values revealed no significant difference between sensor types and exposure times. Linear-weighted κ analysis revealed almost perfect agreement for all assessments. Conclusion: No significant difference was found for diagnostic performance of proximal caries detection between the different sensors and exposure times. The increased exposure time did not lead to a significant diagnostic benefit.

Objective: To review our experience with a standardized dental management approach in patients with planned radiotherapy of the head and neck region based on preradiation and follow‐up data.Material and Methods: Records of patients who underwent radiotherapy between June 2016 and November 2020 were reviewed. Data on dental findings and therapeutic recommendations were extracted from a prospectively managed database. Hospital records were used to obtain follow‐up data.Results: Two hundred eighty‐one patient records were identified. After the exclusion of 81 patients because of incomplete data, 200 patients were included in the study. Dental findings relevant to radiotherapy were found in 144 cases (72.0%). Teeth extractions were recommended in 112 (56.0%) patients. Follow‐up data were available for 172 (86.0%) patients (mean follow‐up: 16.8 ± 10.7 months). Radiodermatitis was the most frequently observed sequela of radiotherapy (42.4%), followed by dysphagia (38.4%) and stomatitis (36.6%). Osteoradionecrosis was observed in only 2.3% of the patients.Conclusion: Dental findings relevant to planned radiotherapy were frequent and in many cases resulted in recommendations for teeth extraction. Based on our standardized dental management protocol, we observed low rates of late oral complications after radiotherapy of the head and neck region.