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.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review

AIM

The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) for making digital implant impressions is increasing. However, there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of IOS compared with conventional techniques. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence on the accuracy of digital implant impression techniques, as well as to identify the main factors influencing the accuracy outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers searched electronic databases in November, 2016. Controlled vocabulary, free-text terms, and defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. Publications in English language evaluating the accuracy outcomes of digital implant impressions were identified. Pooled data were analysed qualitatively and pertinent data extracted.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: one in vivo and 15 in vitro studies. The clinical study concluded that angular and distance errors were too large to be acceptable clinically. Less accurate findings were reported by several in vitro studies as well. However, all in vitro studies investigating the accuracy of newer generation IOS indicated equal or even better results compared with the conventional techniques. Data related to the influence of distance and angulation between implants, depth of placement, type of scanner, scanning strategy, characteristics of scanbody and reference scanner, operator experience, etc were analysed and summarised. Linear deviations (means) of IOS used in in vitro studies ranged from 6 to 337 µm. Recent studies indicated small angle deviations (0.07-0.3°) with digital impressions. Some studies reported that digital implant impression accuracy was influenced by implant angulation, distance between the implants, implant placement depth and operator experience.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this systematic review and based on mainly in vitro studies, digital implant impressions offer a valid alternative to conventional impressions for single- and multi-unit implant-supported restorations. Further in vivo studies are needed to substantiate the use of currently available IOS, identify factors potentially affecting accuracy and define clinical indications for specific type of IOS. Data on Data on accuracy OF digital records, as well as accuracy of printed or milled models for implant-supported restorations, are of high relevance and are still lacking. Conflict-of-interest and funding statement: The authors state there is no conflict of interest.