Transfer Accuracy of 3D-Printed Customized Devices in Digital Indirect Bonding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 1
List of inclusion and exclusion criteria, according to PICOS schema.
Field
Inclusion
Exclusion
Patients
Dental casts or dental arches treated with digital indirect bonding for labial bracket positioning
(i) Dental casts or dental arches treated with direct bonding or with traditional indirect bonding (ii) Use of lingual appliances
Intervention (exposure)
Use of 3D-printed transfer device
(i) Use of traditional transfer device (ii) Use of 3D-printed transfer device but without specific descriptions of the materials and applied technique
Comparison
(A) No comparison (for the descriptive analysis of the accuracy of 3D-printed transfer device) (B) Digital transfer device vs. traditional transfer device (comparison between 3D-printed and conventional materials, such as double-layer or single-layer silicone rubber guide, double-layer or single-layer thermoforming plastic guide)
Outcome
Accuracy of orthodontic bracket transfer, in terms of: (i) Linear (mesio-distal, bucco-lingual, vertical) measurements (ii) Angular (angulation, rotation, torque) measurements
No clear mention of the analysis method
Study design
Randomized clinical trials or nonrandomized, prospective, or retrospective cohort studies
