(1) Background: Novel high-performance polymers for medical 3D printing enable in-office manufacturing of fully customized brackets. Previous studies have investigated clinically relevant parameters such as manufacturing precision, torque transmission, and fracture stability. The aim of this study is to evaluate different design options of the bracket base concerning the adhesive bond between the bracket and tooth, measured as the shear bond strength (SBS) and maximum force (F_max) according to DIN 13990. (2) Methods: Three different designs for printed bracket bases were compared with a conventional metal bracket (C). The following configurations were chosen for the base design: Matching of the base to the anatomy of the tooth surface, size of the cross-sectional area corresponding to the control group (C), and a micro- (A) and macro- (B) retentive design of the base surface. In addition, a group with a micro-retentive base (D) matched to the tooth surface and an increased size was studied. The groups were analyzed for SBS, F_max, and adhesive remnant index (ARI). The Kruskal–Wallis test with a post hoc test (Dunn–Bonferroni) and Mann–Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis (significance level: p < 0.05). (3) Results: The values for SBS and F_max were highest in C (SBS: 12.0 ± 3.8 MPa; F_max: 115.7 ± 36.6 N). For the printed brackets, there were significant differences between A and B (A: SBS 8.8 ± 2.3 MPa, F_max 84.7 ± 21.8 N; B: SBS 12.0 ± 2.1 MPa, F_max 106.5 ± 20.7 N). F_max was significantly different for A and D (D: F_max 118.5 ± 22.8 N). The ARI score was highest for A and lowest for C. (4) Conclusions: This study shows that conventional brackets form a more stable bond with the tooth than the 3D-printed brackets. However, for successful clinical use, the shear bond strength of the printed brackets can be increased with a macro-retentive design and/or enlargement of the base.

Purpose: To investigate a novel in-office three-dimensionally (3D) printed polymer bracket regarding slot precision and torque transmission. Methods: Based on a 0.022″ bracket system, stereolithography was used to manufacture brackets (N = 30) from a high-performance polymer that met Medical Device Regulation (MDR) IIa requirements. Conventional metal and ceramic brackets were used for comparison. Slot precision was determined using calibrated plug gages. Torque transmission was measured after artificial aging. Palatal and vestibular crown torques were measured from 0 to 20° using titanium–molybdenum (T) and stainless steel (S) wires (0.019″ × 0.025″) in a biomechanical experimental setup. The Kruskal–Wallis test with post hoc test (Dunn–Bonferroni) was used for statistical analyses (significance level p < 0.05). Results: The slot sizes of all three bracket groups were within the tolerance range according to DIN 13996 (ceramic [C]: 0.581 ± 0.003 mm; metal [M]: 0.6 ± 0.005 mm; polymer [P]: 0.581 ± 0.010 mm). The maximum torque values of all bracket–arch combinations were above the clinically relevant range of 5–20 Nmm (PS: 30 ± 8.6 Nmm; PT: 27.8 ± 14.2 Nmm; CS: 24 ± 5.6 Nmm; CT: 19.9 ± 3.8 Nmm; MS: 21.4 ± 6.7 Nmm; MT: 16.7 ± 4.6 Nmm). Conclusions: The novel, in-office manufactured polymer bracket showed comparable results to established bracket materials regarding slot precision and torque transmission. Given its high individualization possibilities as well as enabling an entire in-house supply chain, the novel polymer brackets bear high potential of future usage for orthodontic appliances.

Objective: Intermaxillary elastics, anchored skeletally, represent a promising concept for treatment in adolescent patients with skeletal Class III anomalies. A challenge in existing concepts is the survival rate of the miniscrews in the mandible or the invasiveness of the bone anchors. A novel concept, the mandibular interradicular anchor (MIRA) appliance, for improving skeletal anchorage in the mandible, will be presented and discussed. Clinical case: In a ten-year-old female patient with a moderate skeletal Class III, the novel MIRA concept, combined with maxillary protraction, was applied. This involved the use of a CAD/CAM-fabricated indirect skeletal anchorage appliance in the mandible, with interradicularly placed miniscrews distal to each canine (MIRA appliance), and a hybrid hyrax in the maxilla with paramedian placed miniscrews. The modified alt-RAMEC protocol involved an intermittent weekly activation for five weeks. Class III elastics were worn for a period of seven months. This was followed by alignment with a multi-bracket appliance. Discussion: The cephalometric analysis before and after therapy shows an improvement of the Wits value (+3.8 mm), SNA (+5°), and ANB (+3°). Dentally, a transversal postdevelopment in the maxilla (+4 mm) and a labial tip of the maxillary (+3.4°) and mandibular anterior teeth (+4.7°) with gap formation is observed. Conclusion: The MIRA appliance represents a less invasive and esthetic alternative to the existing concepts, especially with two miniscrews in the mandible per side. In addition, MIRA can be selected for complex orthodontic tasks, such as molar uprighting and mesialization.

Introduction: Digital technologies are playing an increasingly significant role in everyday university life, offering a broad spectrum of possibilities for enhancing teaching and learning. In contrast to orthodontic clinical practice, however, university‐level courses for dental students continue to rely predominantly on analogue diagnostic methods. Thus, this study aimed to investigate whether the integration of digital media in teaching increases student motivation and whether comparable or improved diagnostic outcomes could be achieved. Material and Methods: In this hypothesis‐generating study, 80 students assessed a cephalometric radiograph and a dental model both digitally and using traditional analog methods, with a 2‐week interval between the sessions. Following the second session, participants completed a questionnaire evaluating their experiences with both approaches including their motivation associated with each learning method. Primary and secondary endpoints were summarized descriptively. Considering the cross‐over design of the study, a linear mixed‐effects regression analysis was performed to evaluate whether the digital and analog methods yielded comparable learning effects, as assessed by various parameters, including ANB. The model incorporated a random intercept for each participant. Results: The assessment outcomes for both diagnostic tools were comparable across the two methods. Notably, the digital evaluations tended to deliver more accurate results and were completed in significantly less time. The questionnaire showed that the students were more enthusiastic using digital methods during university lessons. Conclusions: Students' subjective motivation in the field of orthodontics has increased significantly as a result of the digital analysis. The time saving was significant, which was mentioned in the evaluation as particularly positive. Students were able to achieve comparable or even better results when using the digital web tool to evaluate teleradiographic images and orthodontic models.

Skeletal-anchored mesial sliders are increasingly used for molar mesialization, yet their mechanical behavior has not been compared under standardized conditions. This in vitro pilot study evaluated four slider designs (BENEfit^® Beneslider [BB], TADMAN Beneslider [TB], IZE Slider [IO; OrthoLIZE GmbH], Slider on Minipin [SO; OrthoLIZE GmbH]), each combined with elastic chains (-C) or NiTi springs (-S), to characterize force loss, mesial movement, and associated mechanical side effects using an experimental biomechanical measurement system. Using repeated measurements on one specimen with 1 N of applied force, three-dimensional tooth movements were recorded across 200 simulation steps per run. The sliders showed design-dependent mechanical patterns: IO sliders produced the smallest sagittal movements (IO-C: −0.84 mm [0.05], IO-S: −0.79 mm [0.02]) and the highest force loss (IO-C: 88.1% [2.1], IO-S: 89.8% [0.3]), whereas BB-S and TB-S generated larger mesialization distances (BB-S: −3.55 mm [0.53], TB-S: −3.46 mm [0.08]) with lower force loss (BB-S: 42.8% [9.2], TB-S: 21.1% [2.9]). Translational deviations remained small, while rotational effects were more pronounced. These findings represent mechanical tendencies of the tested configurations under idealized conditions and do not account for biological variability, periodontal compliance, or patient-specific factors. As such, the results cannot be generalized to clinical performance but provide preliminary reference data. Expanded investigations using multiple specimens, biological modeling, or finite element analysis will be necessary to determine how these mechanical patterns translate into clinical tooth movement.