AI-Assisted Design of 3D-Printed Lingual Indirect Bonding Trays: A Comparative Evaluation of Bracket Transfer Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigated the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the design of lingual bracket indirect bonding trays and its association with bracket transfer accuracy using three-dimensional (3D) printing. Methods: Digital impressions of patient’s dental arches were captured using an intraoral scanner, and orthodontic setups were virtually constructed. Brackets were virtually positioned in their ideal locations using the digital setups guided by virtual archwire templates. Indirect bonding trays were automatically generated using the AI-powered Auto Creation function of the Medit Splints application, which analyzes anatomical features to streamline design. Bracket transfer accuracy was evaluated in vivo by comparing planned and actual bracket positions across grouped and individual tray configurations. Linear and angular deviations were measured using conventional 3D inspection software. Results: Most bracket transfer errors were within clinically acceptable thresholds, although torque accuracy remained suboptimal. Grouped trays generally exhibited greater precision than individual trays in several dimensions. Conclusions: These findings support the application of AI-assisted design tools to enhance digital workflows and improve consistency in appliance fabrication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".