Bonding positional accuracy of attachments and marginal adaptation of in‐house aligners – A quality improvement laboratory study

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the 3D accuracy of attachment positioning and the adaptation of aligners to attachments using in‐house templates made with either polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) or ethylene‐vinyl acetate (EVA) and either pressure or vacuum thermoforming machines. Materials and Methods Overall, 140 test specimens were resin‐printed. Templates for the attachment bonding were made with 1‐mm EVA or 0.5‐mm PETG laminates. Orthodontic aligners were manufactured with 0.75‐mm PETG. The thermoplastification process was carried out using either vacuum or pressure machines. The positional differences between the virtual and bonded attachments were assessed in the X , Y and Z coordinates. The marginal adaptation between the aligners and the attachments was measured. Results Minor inaccuracies in the positioning of the attachments were observed in all combinations of thermoforming machines and plastic laminates used to fabricate the templates, mainly in the superior–inferior ( Z ) dimension. PETG performed better than EVA in the anterior region ( p < .05). No association was found between thermoplastification machines and the accuracy of the positioning of the attachments ( p > .05). While small misadaptations between the aligners and the attachments were observed, the EVA templates performed better than the PETG templates. Conclusions The inaccuracy of the attachment positioning and the misadaptation of the aligners to the attachments were slight. The vacuum and pressure thermoplastification machines showed no difference in attachment positioning accuracy. The PETG template was better than the EVA template in the anterior region, but the EVA attachments presented a better adaptation to the aligners than the PETG attachments.