How accurate is Invisalign in nonextraction cases? Are predicted tooth positions achieved?

A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with Invisalign®

We are currently living in an era where the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing has allowed individualized orthodontic treatments, but has also incorporated enhanced digitalized technology that does not permit improvisation. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze publications that assessed the accuracy and efficiency of the Invisalign® system. A systematic review was performed using a search strategy to identify articles that referenced Invisalign®, which were published between August 2007 and August 2017, and listed in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and LILACS. Additionally, a manual search of clinical trials was performed in scientific journals and other databases. To rate the methodological quality of the articles, a grading system described by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care was used, in combination with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. We selected 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria and excluded 5 due to excess biases. The level of evidence was high. Although it is possible to treat malocclusions with plastic systems, the results are not as accurate as those achieved by treatment with fixed appliances.

Comparison of achieved and predicted tooth movement of maxillary first molars and central incisors: First premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign

OBJECTIVES

To compare achieved and predicted tooth movements of maxillary first molars and central incisors in first premolar extraction cases treated with Invisalign.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study included 30 patients who received maxillary first premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign. The actual posttreatment model was registered with the pretreatment model on the palatal stable region and superimposed with the virtual posttreatment model. Achieved and predicted tooth movements of maxillary first molars and central incisors were compared using paired t-test. Linear mixed-effect model analyses were used to explore the influence of age (adolescents vs adults), attachment (G6-optimized vs 3-mm vertical, 3-mm horizontal, and 5-mm horizontal), and initial crowding on the differences between predicted and achieved tooth movement (DPATM).

RESULTS

First molars achieved greater mesial tipping, mesial translation, and intrusion than predicted. Central incisors achieved less retraction and greater lingual crown torque and extrusion than predicted. Adolescents showed greater DPATM in the mesiodistal translation of first molars and labiolingual translation of central incisors and smaller DPATM in the occlusogingival translation of the first molars and crown torque of the central incisors than adults. The 3-mm vertical attachment group showed greater DPATM in the mesiodistal translation of the first molars vs the G6-optimized attachment group. Initial crowding had an inverse correlation with DPATM in angulation and mesiodistal translation of the first molars.

CONCLUSIONS

First molar anchorage control and central incisor retraction were not fully achieved as predicted in first premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign. Age, attachment, and initial crowding affected the differences between predicted and achieved tooth movement.

Force changes associated with different intrusion strategies for deep-bite correction by clear aligners

OBJECTIVES:

To investigate the relationships among different intrusion patterns of clear overlay aligners and the corresponding orthodontic forces and to provide guidance for clinical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Five sets of removable thermoplastic-formed aligners with the same thickness, designed for different intrusion procedures (G0 aligners as a control group, with no activation; G1 aligners for intruding canines; G2 aligners for intruding incisors; G3 aligners for intruding canines and incisors with the same activations; G4 aligners for intruding canines and incisors with different activation), were manufactured, and the corresponding intrusion forces were measured with a multiaxis force/torque transducer measurement system in real time.

RESULTS:

With the same activation (0.2-mm intrusion) and rectangular attachments placed on the premolars and first molars, the canines experienced the largest intrusive force when intruded alone using G1 aligners. The canines received a larger intrusive force than incisors in G3. The incisors received similar forces in G2 and G3. First premolars endured the largest extrusive forces when all anterior teeth were intruded with G3 aligners. Extrusion forces were exerted on canines and lateral incisors when using G4 aligners.

CONCLUSIONS:

Aligners with different intrusion patterns exert different forces on incisors, canines, and premolars, and the forces were closely related to the designed activation, shape and position of the attachment and relative movement of the adjacent teeth.

Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of aligner fit on teeth

OBJECTIVES

The fitting of aligners on anchorage teeth is a crucial factor in clear aligner orthodontics. The purpose of this experimental study was to evaluate the fitting of two aligner systems, Invisalign and CA-Clear Aligner, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Passive aligners (Invisalign and CA-Clear Aligner) were adapted on resin casts obtained by stereolithography (STL) files of a patient, and then sectioned buccolingually. Upper and lower central incisors, upper and lower first premolars, and upper and lower first molars were the regions analyzed. Representative microphotographs of sections were taken with a scanning electron microscope (SEM); a total of 160 micrometric measurements were obtained and analyzed with ANOVA tests.

RESULTS

Invisalign provided an overall better fit on lower incisors ( F = 11.48, P = .0095) and on lower molars ( F = 19.93, P = .0012). Considering the different regions, Invisalign provided better fit at the gingival edge of the buccal aspect on lower incisors ( F = 11.33, P = 0.0056) and at the gingival edge of the lingual aspect on upper premolars ( F =5.34, P = 0.0047). On the upper molars, Invisalign provided better fit at the gingival edge of the buccal aspect, while CA-Clear Aligner provided better fit at the buccal maximum convexity, on the buccal cusp, on the occlusal groove and at the palatal cusp. On lower molars, Invisalign showed a more accurate fit at the buccal aspect points.

CONCLUSIONS

Invisalign and CA-Clear Aligner exhibited comparable fit on anchorage teeth. Invisalign provided better fit at the gingival edges of aligners, while the CA-Clear Aligner provided better fit on complex occlusal surfaces.

Movement of anterior teeth using clear aligners: a three-dimensional, retrospective evaluation

BACKGROUND

Clear aligner treatment offers several advantages, but the available literature shows that some kind of tooth movements are unpredictable. In addition, the majority of the studies are focused on one clear aligner system, while different characteristics of various systems can provide different treatment outcomes. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the predictability of Nuvola® aligner system in achieving torque movements of anterior teeth.

METHODS

Thirty-nine adult patients, who were consecutively treated with clear aligners, were retrospectively selected, and digital models pre-treatment (T0), post-treatment (T1) and the digital setup models (TS) were collected. Only the first phase of treatment made of 12 aligners was considered for the present study. Torque of anterior teeth was measured as labiolingual inclination on digital models at T0, T1, and TS using VAM software. Any difference between the predicted and achieved torque movements was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired sample t test. First-type error was set as p < 0.008.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found for all the anterior teeth between predicted and achieved torque movements.

CONCLUSIONS

The studied clear aligner system was able to produce clinical outcomes comparable to the planning of the digital setup relative to torque movements of the anterior teeth.

Postural changes in orthodontic patients treated with clear aligners: A rasterstereographic study

BACKGROUND

Correlation between malocclusions and body posture has been discussed in the last decades, but there is still a lack of consensus in existing literature. Rasterstereography allows tridimensional reconstruction of the spine, starting from the back surface analysis. So far studies which tested modifications of rasterstereographic parameters during orthodontic treatment, comparing with those obtained from untreated control group, are not available. Clear aligner treatment produces alteration of vertical height due to the occlusal coverage and, subsequently, a stimulation of periodontal receptors which causes an inhibition of the jaw closing muscles and, hypothetically, changes in mandibular posture.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate possible correlations between orthodontic treatment and posture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rasterstereographic values of 15 untreated patients and of 15 patients treated with clear aligners were compared at baseline, after 1, 3 and 6 months. Rasterstereographic parameters considered were the following: the kyphotic angle, the lordotic angle, the upper thoracic inclination, and the pelvic inclination.

RESULTS

Correlations between Kyphosis Angle, Upper Toracic Inclination and Pelvic Inclination and body posture were found after 6 months of treatment with clear aligners.

CONCLUSIONS

Occlusal coverage caused by aligners could influence body posture not only for upper spine sections but also lower spine sections.