Augmented Reality-Assisted Bonding Versus Digitally-Assisted Indirect Bonding in Orthodontic Patients

Seif El-Din Amr Hussein Hegab

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Augmented Reality

Treatments: Device: Digitally-Asssited Indirect Bonding; Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Indirect Bonding

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT04658446

ORTH 3-3-2

Details and patient eligibility

About

Comparing two indirect bonding techniques. Augmented Reality-assisted bonding and Digital 3D printed indirect bonding trays in regards to patient convenience, accuracy of bracket placement and time consumption of each technique used.

Full description

Augmented reality is a relatively new addition to the digital armamentarium. It is becoming increasingly popular especially among surgeons, whether general or dental. In light of the clinicians whom have relied on augmented reality in their fields of work, it was suggested that an augmented reality-assisted orthodontic bonding guide be of use. Such an application would theoretically solve many issues of the indirect bonding techniques at hand.

In this study, we shall investigate whether the theory behind such an augmented reality-assisted bonding guide is on par with the digitally-assisted indirect bonding in terms of patient convenience, accuracy of bracket placement and time consumption of the bonding process, to see whether it qualifies to be a method among all the other methods stated in the literature for indirect bonding.

Digital indirect bonding has many advantages, one of which is achieving greater accuracy in bracket positioning, however it has some down sides such as excess composite flashes around brackets after curing and the cost of 3D printing.

Aim of the Study Is to evaluate the patients' convenience upon using the newly introduced augmented reality-assisted bonding guide in comparison to the digitally-assisted indirect bonding tray. Secondary objectives such as accuracy and procedure time consumption between the two methods are also of importance.

Null Hypothesis There will be no difference in the patients' convenience, accuracy and procedure time consumption between the two methods proposed.

Trial Design Split-mouth, randomized, clinical superiority trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.

Sample Size 96 Teeth with different attachments (Brackets and Tubes)

Enrollment: 8 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 15 to 30 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Arch length deficiency ≤ 5 mm.
• Good oral hygiene.
• Fully erupted permanent dentition, not necessarily including third molars.

Exclusion criteria

• Patient with active periodontal diseases.
• Anterior cross-bite.
• Enamel hypoplasia.
• Previous orthodontic treatment.
• Teeth with caries or restorations on labial surfaces.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Device Feasibility

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

8 participants in 2 patient groups

Augmented Reality-Assisted Bonding

Experimental group

Description:

The quadrant of the upper arch that shall use the AR-assisted bonding method. From the maxillary central incisor to the maxillary first permanent molar of the same quadrant.

Treatment:

Device: Augmented Reality-Assisted Indirect Bonding

Digitally-Asssited Indirect Bonding

Active Comparator group

Description:

The quadrant of the upper arch that shall use the digitally-assisted bonding method utilizing a 3D printed tray. From the maxillary central incisor to the maxillary first permanent molar of the same quadrant.

Treatment:

Device: Digitally-Asssited Indirect Bonding