Accuracy evaluation of orthodontic movements with aligners: a prospective observational study

Does crown, root, and bone visualization in a clear aligner virtual setup impact treatment decisions?

INTRODUCTION

Clear aligner technology based on a machine learning algorithm is currently available for orthodontic treatment. Treatment planning on the basis of 3-dimensional crown, root, and bone imaging is claimed to provide accurate diagnosis and better treatment outcomes for adult patients with complex needs. This study aimed to answer the following questions: (1) would practitioners modify their original treatment plan once provided with the crown, root, and bone view? and (2) does practitioner satisfaction regarding treatment outcomes change once the crown, root, and bone view is provided?

METHODS

An online questionnaire was emailed to members of the American Association of Orthodontists (n = 2300) and the Virginia Orthodontic Education and Research Foundation (n = 211). The survey consisted of videos of 4 patients shown in 2 presentations: crown-only and crown, root, and bone views, generated by artificial intelligence-driven treatment planning software (3D Predict aligner system; 3D Predict, New York, NY). Respondents were asked to answer treatment-related questions and rate the treatment outcomes using a visual analog scale. Statistical analyses were completed to determine the significance of crown, root, and bone view on treatment planning with clear aligners.

RESULTS

A total of 70 orthodontists participated in the survey. There were significant differences in responses when viewing patients in crown-only and crown, root, and bone presentations. Across the 4 patients, 33%-43% of practitioners changed their sentiment toward the treatment plan (P <0.001). When rating satisfaction on the 100-point scale, average ratings changed by 10.6 to 21.0 points; both increases and decreases in satisfaction were seen across the patients (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

When given 3-dimensional information on the position of a patient's crowns, root, and bone coverage, orthodontists are likely to change their clear aligner treatment plan. This study showed that a confirmation of dehiscence and fenestrations using the root and bone view resulted in practitioner dissatisfaction despite an initial satisfaction with the crown-only view.

Accuracy of orthodontic movements with 3D printed aligners: A prospective observational pilot study

Objective

Owing to the availability of 3D software, scanners, and printers, clinicians are encouraged to produce in-office aligners. Recently, a new directprinting resin (Tera Harz TC-85DAC) has been introduced. Studies on its mechanical characteristics and biological effects have been published; however, evidence on its efficacy in orthodontic treatment remains scarce. This pilot study aimed to investigate the accuracy of teeth movement achieved with directprinted aligners.

Methods

Seventeen patients (eight males and nine females) with a mean age of 27.67 ± 8.95 years, presenting with dental rotations < 30° and spaces/crowding < 5 mm, were recruited for this study. The teeth movement was planned starting from a T0 digital dental cast. The 3D direct-printed aligners were produced using Tera Harz TC-85DAC resin. Once the orthodontic treatment was completed, a final digital cast was obtained (T1). The planned teeth positions were then superimposed onto the T0 and T1 digital models. The differences between the programmed movements and the achieved overall torque, tip, rotation, and transverse dimensions were assessed using the paired t test or Wilcoxon's signed rank test.

Results

The overall accuracies for torque, tip, and rotation were 67.6%, 64.2%, and 72.0%, respectively. The accuracy of the change in transverse diameter was 99.6%.

Conclusions

Within the limits of the present pilot study (difficulties with abnormally shaped teeth and use of attachments), it can be concluded that 3D printed aligners can be successfully printed in-house and utilized for mildly crowded cases, with a comparable accuracy of tooth movement to that of other aligners.

Minimally invasive prosthodontics using the concept of prosthetically guided orthodontics

OBJECTIVE

This case report aims to present how digital technology can be employed to plan the orthodontic movement of teeth into their final positions for prosthodontic rehabilitation. An interdisciplinary approach to treatment planning and the result of prosthodontic treatment involves the cooperation of an orthodontist and a prosthodontist. When planned to achieve optimal results for a minimally invasive and functional prosthodontic treatment, orthodontic pretreatment provides superior esthetic results and favorable long-term success.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The orthodontic movements of the teeth were planned so that the prosthodontist could reconstruct an optimally functional and esthetic occlusion while preserving the hard dental tissues. The orthodontic pretreatment minimized the need to prepare the teeth, avoiding any mucogingival surgery to improve the gingival architecture.

CONCLUSIONS

In complex clinical cases, it is essential to evaluate the advantages of an orthodontic pretreatment before starting a prosthodontic treatment. This pretreatment can help preserve dental tissues, reduce or eliminate the need for surgical intervention, and achieve long-term stability and esthetic results.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This case clearly shows the benefits of orthodontic pretreatment for prosthodontic outcomes. With modern digital tools, such an orthodontic pretreatment should become standard clinical practice when planning a complex clinical case.

Predictability of tooth rotations in patients treated with clear aligners

Clear aligners are employed daily for the treatment of several malocclusions. Previous clinical studies indicated low accuracy for the correction of tooth rotations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictability of tooth rotations with clear aligners. The sample comprised 390 teeth (190 mandibular; 200 maxillary), measured from the virtual models of 45 participants (21 men, 24 women; mean age: 29.2 ± 6.6 years old). For each patient, pre-treatment (T0) digital dental models (STL files), virtual plan (T1) and post-treatment digital dental models (T2) of both the mandibular and maxillary arches were imported onto Geomagic Control X, a 3D metrology software which allows angular measurements. Rotations were calculated by defining reproducible vectors for all teeth in each STL file and superimposing both T0 with T1 to determine the prescribed rotation, and T0 with T2 to determine the achieved rotation. Prescribed and achieved rotations were compared to assess movement's accuracy. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and paired t-test were used to assess differences between the prescribed and achieved movements (P < 0.05). The overall predictability of rotational movement was 78.6% for the mandibular arch and 75.0% for the maxillary arch. Second molar accuracy was the lowest in both arches. Clear aligners were not able to achieve 100% of the planned movements.

A comparison of the upper anterior teeth movements with optimized and conventional attachment

Background

Invisalign® attachments are divided into two main groups: the conventional group and the optimized group, which is also known as the SmartForce™. The aim of this study is to compare the movements produced by an optimized crescent-shaped attachment in superior incisor teeth with the movements produced by a conventional rectangular attachment (vertical and horizontal) in the same teeth.

Material and Methods

This retrospective study examined the movement table of the initial ClinCheck® and the first refinement of 95 patients (mean age 44.18 ± 4.125, 40 males and 55 females). It represented 147 upper incisors divided into two groups: 87 with rectangular attachment and 60 with optimized attachment. Applying Kravitz's accuracy formula for each movement and each tooth of interest (with attachments of interest), we underlined the effectiveness of each attachment. Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used for statistical analysis.

Results

The accuracies of rotation, mesio-distal angulation and vestibulo-lingual inclination are highly significantly related to the type of attachment used on the upper lateral incisor. The optimized attachment presented greater accuracy in the rotation of the lateral incisors than the conventional attachment. However, conventional vertical attachment showed a higher accuracy (p<.01) in the mesio-distal angulation and horizontal attachments showed a higher accuracy (p<.01) in the vestibulo-lingual inclination in the same group of teeth.

Conclusions

Optimized attachments rotate better lateral incisors; conventional vertical attachments are more efficient to improve mesio-distal angulation; and horizontal attachments serve best for torque movements. Key words:Orthodontics, clear aligners, orthodontic tooth movements, attachments.

Does aligner refinement have the same efficiency in deep bite correction?: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Refinements are very common in clear aligner treatments. The aim of this study is to assess whether the predictability of deep overbite correction is similar over several refinements using clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, San Jose, Calif) and examine the accuracy of vertical movement and inclination change of individual teeth.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 20 deep bite patients (7M and 13F; 32.63 ± 11.88 years old; an initial overbite of 5.09 ± 0.98 mm), consecutively treated from September 2016 and March 2023, who completed at least two sets of aligners, including refinements. The initial, predicted, and achieved models were exported from ClinCheck or OrthoCAD (Cadent Inc, Carlstadt, NJ) and superimposed via best-fit surface-based registration using SlicerCMF (version 4.9.0; cmf.slicer.org). We also examined 15 out of 20 patients who completed treatments. The overbite correction and changes in vertical movement and inclination for individual teeth were measured. Descriptive statistics and a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean accuracy of overbite correction was 37.63% after 1st set, followed by 11.19%, 6.32%, and 13.80% (2nd-4th sets), respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the predicted and achieved vertical movements and inclination changes for all teeth for the 1st and 2nd sets. For the completed cases, the mean overbite correction was 38.54% compared to the initially planned overbite correction, which is similar to one of the 1st set. Still, the vertical movements and inclination changes of all teeth present statistically significant differences between the initially planned and finally achieved movements except for maxillary lateral incisor torque.

CONCLUSIONS

The most overbite correction occurs during the 1st set of aligners, and refinement treatment does not significantly improve the deep bite correction.

Effectiveness of the Attachment Design and Thickness of Clear Aligners during Orthodontic Anterior Retraction: Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Clear aligner treatment (CAT) provides orthodontic patients with a comfortable treatment alternative; however, this device has limited capacity to facilitate tooth movements. Although composite attachment has been proposed to facilitate tooth displacement, some of its aspects, such as aligner thickness, can influence CAT's precision. This work aimed to compare the stress distribution patterns produced by clear aligners with different thicknesses and composite attachment shapes during anterior retraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Maxillary models consisting of clear aligners, maxillary teeth, and various attachments to the upper central incisor's labial surface were generated. Three models were built to mimic the retraction of the upper central incisors. Each had a distinct attachment design (rectangular attachment, ellipsoid attachment, and pyramidal attachment) and various aligner thicknesses (0.75, 0.85, 0.95, 1.05, and 1.15 mm). Upper central incisor retraction was accomplished using clear aligners. Finite element analysis was used to examine the built models. Stress distribution pattern was examined.

RESULTS

The greater the thickness of the aligner, the higher the stress experienced by the teeth. The 0.75 mm-thick aligner induces the lightest stress with a minimum of 0.0037623 MPa and a maximum of 0.32859 MPa. Meanwhile, the 1.5 mm-thick aligner has the highest stress with a minimum of 0.004679 MPa and a maximum of 0.43858 MPa. The force distribution on rectangular attachments appears evenly distributed. The maximum pressure force on rectangular attachments has a minimum of 0.38828 MPa, which is smaller than the maximum on ellipsoid and pyramidal attachments at 0.40933 and 0.45099 MPa, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The best aligner thickness is 0.75 to 0.85 mm for anterior retraction. An aligner with 0.95 mm thickness can still be used when a remarkable amount of tooth movement force is needed; however, this exception is only applicable to a limited number of clear aligner trays. The ellipsoid attachment is the best type of attachment because the resulting force is substantial and evenly distributed.

Orthodontic aligners: between passion and science

INTRODUCTION

The benefits and safety of using orthodontic aligners have been reported more by clinical experience and expert opinion than by scientific evidence. Another important aspect is that aligners are constantly evolving. It is important to obtain evidence that allows for new updates in manufacturing technology, in the development of new movement planning protocols, in the incorporation and design of attachments, and in the aid of skeletal anchorage.

METHODS

Evidence retrieved from six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info, the Cochrane Library and the Joanna Briggs Library) is presented by means of questions and answers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that the aligners presented different levels of difficulty in performing each type of movement, with rotational and vertical movements being the most difficult to perform. Regarding perception of pain due to tooth movement, it seems to have less impact at the beginning of treatment; but dealing with more phonoarticulatory changes seems to require more treatment time in more complex cases. Aligners do not prevent the occurrence of root resorption, although the incidence and severity of resorption may be reduced, making oral hygiene easier and accepting the risk of white spots, caries and periodontal disease. Given the conflicting evidence, the release of bisphenol-A from the aligner cannot be denied. Solutions must be found to reduce the environmental impact of aligners disposal. There is an urgent need for well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Assessment of clear aligner accuracy of 2 clear aligners systems

INTRODUCTION

This study compared treatment efficacy for specific tooth movements between 2 clear aligner systems (Clarity [3M Oral Care Solutions, St Paul, Minn] and Invisalign [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif]).

METHODS

The study sample included 47 patients (7 males, 40 females; mean age, 36.57 ± 15.97 years) treated with Invisalign and 37 (4 males, 33 females; mean age, 34.30 ± 16.35 years) treated with Clarity aligners who completed their first set of aligners and had an initial refinement scan. Initial and predicted models were obtained from the initial simulated treatment plan. The first model of the refinement scan was labeled as achieved. SlicerCMF software (version 3.1; http://www.slicer.org) was used to superimpose the achieved and predicted digital models over the initial ones with regional superimposition on the relatively stable first molars. Nine hundred forty teeth in the Invisalign system were measured for horizontal, vertical, and angular movements and transverse width and compared with similar measurements of 740 teeth for the Clarity aligners. The deviation from the predicted was calculated and compared between both systems.

RESULTS

The deviation achieved from the predicted was significant between the groups for the mandibular interpremolar and intercanine widths (P <0.05). Clarity aligners significantly undercorrected rotations compared with Invisalign for the mandibular first premolars, mandibular canines, maxillary canines, and maxillary central incisors. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the achieved vs predicted movements in the horizontal and vertical planes (P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of clear aligner therapy systems (Clarity and Invisalign) in treating mild and moderate malocclusions was comparable. Deviation of the achieved movements from the predicted was greatest for rotational and vertical movements.

Impact of Invisalign G-series Updates on Improving Predicted Outcomes: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the real-world implications of periodic changes to orthodontic appliances can provide valuable insights for future treatment strategies and patient outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the latest updates added to the G7 and G8 Invisalign series on actual versus predicted outcomes and the percentage accuracy of the treatment.

METHOD

This retrospective study was conducted in private orthodontic practices in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Orthodontists carried out Invisalign® treatment using the latest updates added to the G7 and G8 Invisalign series. The study group comprised patients with different malocclusion types who received non-extraction Invisalign treatment. The Invisalign treatment plan was provided by the ClinChecks program (Invisalign, San Jose, United States) for patients treated throughout the years (2016-2022). Different dimensions were assessed to record predicted and actual treatment outcomes with the aid of iTero® (Align Technology, San Jose, United States) and ClinCheck® (Invisalign, San Jose, United States). The percentage accuracy was determined using the formula (100%-((Predicted-Actual)/Predicted) *100%).

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients (male = 34 (31.5%) and female = 74 (68.5%)) treated with Invisalign G7 and G8 series were considered in this study. The overall mean and standard deviation values of vertical distance (2.91±1.42), intermolar distance in the lower arch (52.68±3.15), overjet (2.71±1.06), and inter-incisal angle (138.24±12.18) were higher than the predicted model. However, the predicted model showed higher mean and standard deviation values for intercanine distances in the upper (36.94±1.57) and lower arches (28.48±1.40) and upper intermolar distances (57.21±2.91). The G7 versus G8 intercanine distance in lower (61.28±47.67 vs. 80.51±38.32), intermolar distance in upper (61.72±47.67 vs. 69.95±44.11), and intermolar distance in lower (100.68±3.80 vs. 100.89±2.52) were relatively higher in the G8 series than the G7. The accuracy percentage was higher with the G8 series than with the G7 regarding the intercanine distance in the upper arch. In contrast, the G7 series showed a higher mean percentage accuracy of vertical distance (91.11±84.83 vs. 76.76±65.45), overjet (58.44±35.17 vs. 53.71±45.87), and inter-incisal angle (34.47±44.06 vs. 27.53±37.98) than the G8 series.

CONCLUSION

The percentage accuracy of aligner therapy administered using the Invisalign G7 and G8 series demonstrated no significant variation.

Effects of upper arch expansion using clear aligners on different stride and torque: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

During maxillary arch expansion with a clear aligner (CA), buccal tipping of the posterior teeth often occurs, resulting in an unsatisfactory arch expansion effect. The aim of this study was to analyze the appropriate maxillary arch expansion stride length and torque compensation angle for maxillary dentition to achieve an ideal moving state when a CA was used for upper arch expansion.

METHODS

This study established a three-dimensional (3D) finite element model including a CA, maxilla, periodontal ligament (PDL), and maxillary dentition. The stress distribution, stress situation, expansion efficiency, and movement trends of the maxillary dentition during upper arch expansion of different stride (0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, and 0.3 mm) and torque compensation (0°, 0.5°, 1°, and 1.5°) were measured.

RESULTS

Maxillary arch expansion lead to buccal tilt of the posterior teeth, lingual tilt of the anterior teeth, and extrusion of the incisors. As the angle of compensation increased, the degree of buccal tilt on the posterior teeth decreased, with this reducing the efficiency of upper arch expansion. When the stride length was 0.1 mm, the torque compensation was 1.2°, and when stride length was 0.2 mm and the torque compensation was approximately 2°, there was a tendency for the posterior teeth to move bodily. However, when the stride length was 0.3 mm, the increase in torque compensation could not significantly improve the buccal tilt phenomenon. In addition, the equivalent von-Mises stress values of the maxillary root, PDL, and alveolar bone were in the same order of magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that the posterior teeth cause a degree of buccal tilt when maxillary arch expansion is ensured. The specific torque compensation angle should be determined based on the patient's situation and the desired effect.

Effect of clear aligner attachment design on extrusion of maxillary lateral incisors: A multicenter, single-blind randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Extrusion of maxillary lateral incisors during aligner treatment is a difficult movement to achieve accurately. Despite recommendations regarding attachment design, few studies and no prospective trials compare predictability among attachments. This study aimed to compare the efficacy between optimized and horizontal attachment designs for achieving maxillary lateral incisor extrusion during clear aligner treatment.

METHODS

The study included maxillary lateral incisors in 3 orthodontic practices requiring at least 0.3 mm of extrusion during the first series of 20-25 aligners in patients aged ≥16 years who were scheduled to begin clear aligner treatment (Invisalign; Align Technology, San Jose, Calif). Teeth were randomly assigned to receive optimized (O), rectangular horizontal nonbeveled (H), rectangular horizontal incisally-beveled (HIB), or rectangular horizontal gingivally-beveled (HGB) attachments. After the first series, a blinded evaluator measured extrusion using superimpositions with initial and predicted models. Linear models determined the difference in the predicted extrusion percentage achieved on the basis of attachment design. Other covariates were patient age, sex, number of trays, and self-reported compliance.

RESULTS

Forty patients (74 teeth) were enrolled, and 38 patients (71 teeth) completed the study. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability for extrusion measurements was high (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.985 and 0.991, respectively). The achieved extrusion was significantly less than predicted (mean, 73%; P <0.0001). The average achieved extrusion was 62%, 79%, 78%, and 78% for O, H, HIB, and HGB attachments, respectively, with H significantly more effective than O (P = 0.0403). Horizontal attachments (H, HIB, and HGB combined) were significantly more effective than O attachments (P = 0.0060), with an average difference in achieved extrusion of 14% of the predicted amount (95% confidence interval, 4-23; estimated 76% vs 62%). Horizontal attachments were an estimated 22% more effective than O attachments for extruding maxillary lateral incisors.

CONCLUSIONS

Horizontal attachments are more effective than O attachments for predicted maxillary lateral incisor extrusion between 0.3 and 2.5 mm. The 3 horizontal attachment designs evaluated performed similarly for achieving predicted extrusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This randomized clinical trial was registered and reported at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04968353).

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

FUNDING

This study was funded in part by the Alexander Fellowship of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, the Southern Association of Orthodontists, and the Virginia Orthodontic Education and Research Foundation. No funding source influenced the study design, the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.

Clear Aligner Therapy: Up to date review article

The advantages of Clear Aligners Therapy (CAT) include the braces being virtually invisible, comfortable to wear, and removable for eating and brushing; that way, CAT can be used to treat a wide range of orthodontic issues. In 1999, the company Align Technology introduced the frst commercial clear aligner system called Invisalign. The Invisalign system was initially only available to orthodontists, but later became available to general dentists as well. The system quickly gained popularity among patients who were looking for a more discreet and comfortable alternative to traditional braces. In 2000, Align Technology received FDA clearance for the Invisalign system, which further increased its popularity. The biomechanics of clear aligners involve the use of custom-made tooth aligners that are specifcally shaped to guide teeth into desired positions. These aligners are typically made from flexible materials such as polyurethane or ethylene vinyl acetate and are adjusted to apply the necessary forces for tooth movement. Attachment devices, such as power ridges or buttons, are often used to enhance or assist in specifc tooth movements and for retention of the aligner. The use of attachments allows for the exertion of desired force on the teeth, which is crucial for the success of Clear Aligner Therapy. CAT should be used if patients are concerned about the esthetic appearances of their teeth-for example, actors and other individuals that rely on their appearances in public in a professional context-and if the misalignment is not severe, so that clear aligners can still work. One should not use CAT in cases of severe crowding or spacing issues that require extractions. If the patient has complex jaw discrepancies or skeletal issues or if teeth need to be moved extensively in multiple directions, CAT is likely not going to be strong enough. In conclusion, Clear Aligner Therapy is a safe, effective, and convenient orthodontic treatment option that offers patients a virtually invisible way to achieve a straighter, more beautiful smile. With continued advancements in technology and a growing body of research supporting its effectiveness, the future of Clear Aligner Therapy looks bright.

Coronal Repercussions of the Maxillary Central Incisor Torque in the First Set of Aligners: A Retrospective Study

Coronal torque is one of the key factors in orthodontic treatment. An adequate torque value has an impact on aesthetics and soft tissue profile. The aim of this quantitative, comparative and observational longitudinal cohort study was to analyze the efficacy of the maxillary central incisor coronal torque in the Invisalign® system and evaluate the relation between coronal torque movement and patient's facial biotype. In total, 27 patients were selected. The planned movements (TP) were obtained from the Invisalign Doctor Site® using mathematical formulas that consider the T0 measurements. Pre-treatment (T0) and after full use of the first set of aligners (T1) scanners were evaluated using Geomagic® Control X TM by superimposing T0 and T1 models using a transverse plane and the long axis of the tooth crown. IBM® SPSS® software was used for statistical purposes. We found statistically significant differences between T0 and T1 in pro-inclination and retro-inclination, as well as between achieved and planned values in pro-inclination (p = 0.011). We verified that hyperdivergent clinical cases presented higher mean values of coronal torque, and hypodivergent cases presented lower values. In pro-inclination, the differences between the planned and achieved values were greater in hypodivergent cases and smaller in hyperdivergent cases. In retro-inclination, the differences between the planned and achieved values were greater in normodivergent cases and smaller in hypodivergent cases. This study highlights that inefficacy is more accentuated in pro-inclination. Aligners are an effective tool for producing coronal repercussions of torque movement, being more effective in retro-inclination.

Effectiveness and predictability of treatment with clear orthodontic aligners: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

In an ideal clinical setting, orthodontic therapy with clear aligners (CA) should improve the patients' initial malocclusion and must guarantee equivalence between the results predicted and those obtained clinically to be considered an effective treatment. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify the orthodontic literature concerning the effectiveness and predictability of CA treatments.

METHODS

A systematic computerized search was performed in 3 databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Inclusion criteria selected observational and clinical studies performed in at least 10 adult orthodontic patients, whose results of CA treatment's effectiveness and/or predictability were assessed.

RESULTS

The 3 database computerized searches resulted in 1,553 articles, and 169 full texts were considered potentially relevant. After applying the eligibility criteria, 33 studies were included. Most studies (76%) were designed as cohort studies and have been published in the last 5 years (79%). The majority included only non-extraction treatments (73%), and 79% reported results achieved with the Invisalign® system. The most predictable movement was the buccolingual tipping, while the least predictable movements were rotation, intrusion, and extrusion. Aligner treatment was effective for mild to moderate crowding resolution, and the success of overbite correction still seems to be limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies have demonstrated improvement of initial malocclusion through CA treatments. Still, predictability degree is overestimated and does not accurately reflect the occlusion immediately at the end of treatment. In future studies, there should be an effort to broaden the utilization of alternative aligner systems beyond Invisalign® and broadly disseminate their outcomes to strengthen clear aligners evidence base.

[Comparison of the outcome of orthodontic dental movement using aligners versus fixed orthodontics: a review]

Introduction

The aligners have become a preferred alternative in terms of orthodontic treatment, surpassing the choice of conventional brackets, due to the comfort and aesthetics that the aligners represent, however, the final result with this system continues to be a controversial issue. The objective of this review was to verify the effectiveness of the treatment completed with aligners versus conventional brackets.

Materials and methods

An exhaustive search was carried out in the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Embase databases up to the date of January 5, 2023, including comparative studies that evaluated the final result and treatment time of the aligners compared to conventional braces. Two researchers carefully selected the articles evaluated and analyzed different key topics on the subject.

Results

In this study, 8 articles were included, according to the studies, the vast majority did not find significant differences in completion between the compared groups. In addition to this, the treatment time in 3 articles was faster with aligners, in 3 articles it was faster with conventional brackets, and in one article no significant difference was found, so it is not yet established whether a system is faster than the other.

Conclusions

Both aligners and conventional fixed orthodontics had good results at the end of orthodontic treatment and presented a similar treatment time, however, the majority of treated cases belonged to malocclusions of medium to low complexity, so these cannot be generalized. findings to all malocclusions.

Predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with aligners: effect of treatment design

BACKGROUNDS

The present study was designed to define: (1) which are the less predictable OTM with Invisalign aligners when the treatment plan is designed by expert operators, (2) if the presence and shape of attachments influence the predictability of OTM and (3) if patients' demographics influence OTM predictability. The sample comprises 79 prospectively recruited patients (mean age 30.8 years; SD 12.0; 23 M, 56 F), treated by expert operators with an average of 27 aligners (SD 15) in the maxillary arch and 25 aligners (SD 11) in the mandibular arch. Post-treatment digital models and final virtual treatment plan models were exported from ClinCheck® software as STL files and subsequently imported into Geomagic Qualify ®software, to compare final teeth positions. The differences were calculated and tested for statistical significance for each tooth in the mesial-distal, vestibular-lingual and occlusal-gingival directions, as well as for angulation, inclination and rotation. In addition, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested.

RESULTS

The lack of correction was significant for all movements and in all group of teeth (P < 0.01) except for the rotation of maxillary first molar. The prescribed OTM, the group of teeth and movement, the frequency of aligner change and the use of attachment influence the outcome. The greatest discrepancies in predicted and achieved tooth position were found for angular movements and rotation of teeth characterized by round-shaped crowns, for a ratio of approximately 0.4° per 1° prescribed. Optimized attachments for upper canines and lower premolar rotation seem not working properly. Second molar movements are mostly unexpressed. Furthermore, changing the aligner every 14 days will reduce the lack of correction of the 12% with respect to 7 days aligner change.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictability of orthodontic movement with aligners still has limitations related to the biomechanics of the system: the shape of some attachments and the characteristics of aligner material need to be redefined. However, the results of this study allow to properly design the virtual treatment plan, revealing how much overcorrection is needed and which attachments are most effective.

Analysis of overcorrection to be included for planning clear aligner therapy: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To provide clinical information on overcorrection to be included in the initial digital setup to make clear aligner therapy (CAT) more efficient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prescription data for 150 patients (80 women and 70 men; mean age 33.7 ± 12.7 years) treated successfully with CAT (F22 Aligners, Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Italy) and requiring only a single, minimal finishing phase were acquired retrospectively. The inclusion criteria were Class I dental malocclusion with only minimal crowding (≤3 mm), 12-20 aligner steps per arch, no use of auxiliaries or interarch elastics, and rotations ≤25° for round-shaped teeth. The prescribed and corrective movements to be achieved in the main and finishing treatment phases, respectively, were quantified by the dedicated clear aligner setup software. The magnitudes of inclination (buccal-lingual crown tipping), angulation (mesial-distal crown tipping), rotation, intrusion, and extrusion were extracted and analyzed by tooth type, maxilla and mandible, and both arches. Descriptive statistics, that is, mean, standard deviation, and percentage, were calculated for each movement investigated. Classification and regression trees (CART) were generated using the model-based recursive partitioning approach, and the corrective movements were correlated with respect to both the amount of the movements prescribed and the tooth type. Statistical significance was set at 5%.

RESULTS

Inclination and rotation required the greatest correction, whereas angulation, intrusion, and extrusion required only minimal correction. Expressed as a percentage of prescribed movement, mean corrective movements were 20.5% for inclination, 14.5% angulation, 28.4% rotation, 11.7% extrusion, and 22% intrusion. According to CART, all corrective movements except extrusion depended on both tooth type and the magnitude of prescribed movement.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve more efficient CAT, approximately 20% overcorrection should be added to the initial planning phase when planning challenging movements such as inclination and rotation.

Torque movement of the upper anterior teeth using a clear aligner in cases of extraction: a finite element study

Background

Clear aligner treatment has become popular over recent years. It is necessary to identify methods by which we could avoid the bowing effect in extractions with clear aligner. The present study was to identify the appropriate method to design torque movement involving the upper anterior teeth of extraction cases, in order to maintain or improve the axis and torque of the upper anterior teeth with a clear aligner during movement and closure of the extraction space.

Results

As the height of the power ridge increased, the rotation angle of the upper central incisor in the sagittal direction decreased gradually and the location of the rotation center changed significantly; the rotation center moved in the apical direction and then changed to the crown side. The highest von-Mises stress of the upper central incisor root, periodontal ligaments, and alveolar bone, showed little change as the power ridge height increased. When the axial inclination of the upper central incisor was normal (U1-SN = 105°), the tendency of movement for the upper central incisor approached translation with a power ridge height of 0.7 mm (corresponding distorted angle: 5.8415). When the axial inclination of the upper central incisor was oversized (U1-SN = 110°), the axial inclination of the upper central incisor reduced to normal following completion of the anterior segment retraction with a power ridge of 0.4 mm (corresponding distorted angle: 3.4265).

Conclusion

Analysis indicates that pure palatal tipping movement of the upper anterior teeth is generated without torque control, thus resulting in the bowing effect. The required torque control of the upper anterior teeth with oversize axial inclination is weaker than that of the upper anterior teeth with normal axial inclination because limited torque loss is expected for oversize axial inclination teeth. Variation sensitivity of the rotation center should be considered carefully due to biological problems when designing translation of the upper anterior teeth with normal axial inclination.