000 03310cam a2200349 a 4500
003 EG-GiCUC
005 20250223032709.0
008 210228s2020 ua dho f m 000 0 eng d
040 _aEG-GiCUC
_beng
_cEG-GiCUC
041 0 _aeng
049 _aDeposite
097 _aM.Sc
099 _aCai01.09.06.M.Sc.2020.Ra.E
100 0 _aRaghda Alaa Eldeen Abdelhamid
245 1 0 _aEvaluation of fixed mandibular retainer using 3D printed positioning tray versus direct bonding technique :
_bA randomized clinical trial /
_cRaghda Alaa Eldeen Abdelhamid ; Supervised Amr Eldakroury , Fouad Aly Elsharaby , Mai Hamdy Aboulfotouh
246 1 5 _aتقييم مثبت الفك السفلى الثابتة باستخدام حاوية مطبوعة رقمية ثلاثية الابعاد لتحديد الموقع مقابل تقنية اللصق المباشر :
_bتجربة سريرية عشوائية
260 _aCairo :
_bRaghda Alaa Eldeen Abdelhamid ,
_c2020
300 _a79 P. :
_bcharts , facimiles , photoghrphs ;
_c25cm
502 _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine- Department of Orthodontics
520 _aAim of this study: is to compare the chairside time and bond failure of fixed mandibular retainers when bonded using the conventional direct technique and the 3D printed positioning tray immediately and after the first 6 month of placement. Materials and methods: A randomized controlled trial was performed using the two techniques to directly and indirectly bond the fixed lingual retainers.20 subjects who were in need of fixed retainers showing no signs of enamel defects or signs of gingival inflammation were recruited in this study. 20 retainers were bonded to the lower anterior teeth. Group I was the intervention group (3D printed positioning tray technique) and Group II was the comparative (the direct technique). In the intervention group, lower impression was taken and the cast produced was scanned using desktop scanner to produce the digital model on which the virtual retainer was placed using the OrthoAnalyzer software. The tray was designed by using Appliance Designer software and printed with rigid resin to allow ease of insertion and removal.The wire was placed inside the 3D printed positioning tray and then transferred inside the patients mouth the chairside time was recorded and number of detached composite was recorded for the bond failure measurements immediately and after 6 month. In the comparative group, same steps where done as intervention group, but with the exception of the bonding technique where the retainer was placed directly inside the patient{u2019}s mouth. Results and conclusion: The chairside time difference between the two bonding techniques was statistically significant, with the 3D printed positioning tray technique taking less chairside time than direct technique
530 _aIssued also as CD
653 4 _a3D printed
653 4 _aDirect bonding technique
653 4 _afixed mandibular retainer
700 0 _aAmr Eldakroury ,
_eSupervisor
700 0 _aFouad Aly Elsharaby ,
_eSupervisor
700 0 _aMai Hamdy Aboulfotouh ,
_eSupervisor
856 _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf
905 _aNazla
_eRevisor
905 _aShimaa
_eCataloger
942 _2ddc
_cTH
999 _c80054
_d80054