Smile outcome comparison of Invisalign and traditional fixed-appliance treatment: A case-control study

Reconsidering the role of nasolabial angle in premolar extraction decision-making: A case-series study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of changes in upper incisor inclination and position on the alteration of the nasolabial angle (NLA) in a series of cases involving the extraction of four first premolars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 41 patients who underwent orthodontic treatment with premolar extractions. The patients were divided into two groups based on their pretreatment NLA values: Group 1 (NLA ≤ 100°) and Group 2 (NLA > 100°). Measurements of NLA, U1.NA and U1-NA were obtained before and after treatment and U1-Ls pretreatment measure was registered. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the differences in NLA, U1.NA and U1-NA between the two groups and to evaluate the influence of these variables added to U1-Ls (T1) on NLA changes.

RESULTS

The results showed that Group 1 exhibited significant changes in NLA, while Group 2 did not. However, both groups showed significant changes in U1.NA and U1-NA. In Group 1, 80% of the individuals presented an increase in NLA and 20% no changes. In Group 2, 10% presented a decrease, 57% no changes and 33% an increase in NLA values. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that the group factor had a statistically significant influence on NLA variation. Additionally, in Group 2, a negative correlation was observed between changes in U1.NA and NLA.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that individuals with higher pretreatment NLA values tend to maintain their NLA values even after the correction of upper incisor inclination.

Content analysis of AI-generated (ChatGPT) responses concerning orthodontic clear aligners

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of ChatGPT answers concerning orthodontic clear aligners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional content analysis of ChatGPT generated responses to queries related to clear aligner treatment (CAT) was undertaken. A total of 111 questions were generated by three orthodontists based on a set of predefined domains and subdomains. The artificial intelligence (AI)-generated (ChatGPT) answers were extracted and their accuracy was determined independently by five orthodontists. The accuracy of answers was assessed using a prepiloted four-point scale scoring rubric. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

The total mean accuracy score for the entire set was 2.6 ± 1.1. It was noted that 58% of the AI-generated answers were scored as objectively true, 18% were selected facts, 9% were minimal facts, and 15% were false. False claims included the ability of CAT to reduce the need for orthognathic surgery (4.0 ± 0.0), improve airway function (3.8 ± 0.5), achieve root parallelism (3.6 ± 0.5), alleviate sleep apnea (3.8 ± 0.5), and produce more stable results compared to fixed appliances (3.8 ± 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall level of accuracy of ChatGPT responses to questions concerning CAT was suboptimal and lacked citations to relevant literature. Ability of the software to offer current and precise information was limited. Therefore, clinicians and patients must be mindful of false claims and relevant facts omitted in the answers generated by ChatGPT.

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.

Perception of Need for Further Refinement in a Clear Aligner Treatment among Orthodontists, Dentists and Laypeople: A Retrospective Study

Clear aligner treatment often requires further refinement to improve the orthodontic treatment outcome. However, the perceptions of treatment outcomes evaluated by orthodontists and dentists are sparse, and laypeople's perceptions have yet to be explored. Here, we explore the perceptions of orthodontists, dentists, and laypeople concerning the treatment outcomes achieved after completing the first sequence of aligners. This cross-sectional study involved 37 orthodontists, 67 dentists, and 93 laypeople. We administered an online questionnaire containing intra-oral photographs of nine completed cases with pre- and post-first sequences of aligners. As a control, we used a digital prediction system for the treatment outcome. Self-perception was reported using a visual analog scale. Both orthodontists and dentists had similar perceptions about treatment outcomes (p = 0.363) but significantly differed from laypeople (p ≤ 0.0001). Both orthodontists and dentists recommended further treatment; orthodontists were more critical than dentists (p ≤ 0.001). Orthodontists were more critical than dentists in their evaluations of the need for further treatments; however, their perceptions of treatment outcomes were similar. Laypeople were more satisfied with the treatment outcomes, were less concerned with occlusion, and were more focused on the aesthetic results of the treatment.

Contemporary Smile Design: An Orthodontic Perspective

Orthodontists play a vital role in the smile design of individuals. There are a variety of orthodontic goals and tooth movements that can be achieved to obtain the ideal smile that ultimately leads to the optimum esthetic outcomes. In this article, some methods and appliance systems to control and achieve the desired tooth movements are described and illustrated.

Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets

Background. Clear aligners have become a treatment alternative to metal brackets in recent years due to the advantages of aesthetics, comfort, and oral health improvement. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the clinical characteristics and dental indices of orthodontic patients using aligners or brackets. Methods. A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021. Patients were stratified by types of treatment (Invisalign® clear aligner (n = 60) or metal bracket (n = 110). Results: Patients were aged 26.1 ± 7.2 years, and most were female (75.0%). The Invisalign® group was older than the bracket group (p = 0.003). The skeletal relationships were mainly Class I (49.4%), followed by Class II (30.0%) and Class III (20.6%). The molar relationships were primarily Class I (38.8%), followed by Class II (37.1%) and Class III (24.1%). The decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index was 9.9 ± 6.0, including 2.1 ± 2.9 for decayed teeth, 0.5 ± 1.1 for missing teeth, and 7.3 ± 4.3 for filled teeth. There were no significant differences in the DMFT index or skeletal and molar relationships between the groups (p > 0.05). The index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) was 56.8 ± 13.5, and the score was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (p = 0.002). Among the variables included in the ICON assessment, only the aesthetic variable was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (p < 0.001). The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle was 27.9 ± 5.1 degrees. Finally, the E-line of the lower lip was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (1.5 ± 2.4 versus 2.8 ± 3.1, p = 0.005). Conclusions. Older patients showed a greater intention to choose Invisalign® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. The demand for Invisalign® aligner treatment for aesthetic reasons was substantial. A soft tissue profile with more protrusive lower lips and a greater need for orthodontic treatment was found in the bracket group.

Does Clear Aligner Treatment Result in Different Patient Perceptions of Treatment Process and Outcomes Compared to Conventional/Traditional Fixed Appliance Treatment: A Literature Review

This study sought to systematically review the literature to determine whether clear aligner treatment results in different patient perceptions of treatment process and outcomes compared with conventional fixed appliance treatment. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that examined differences in patient perceptions between clear aligners and conventional fixed appliance treatment. Studies were identified through searching relevant terms using PubMed and Embase. Following review of identified articles, key information about the studies including study design, setting, comparison groups, sample size/response rate, study location, primary outcomes, and statistical tests used were extracted. A total of 13 articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this study. These studies described a variety of outcomes which were divided into two broad categories: treatment process (pain, chewing, speech, daily routine, etc.) and treatment outcomes (satisfaction level, smile outcome perceptions, etc.). There was the strongest evidence that clear aligners had a positive impact with respect to treatment process compared with fixed orthodontic appliances. This study highlights that clear aligners may be effective for improving treatment-process-related outcomes among orthodontic patients. More studies need to be conducted to determine whether clear aligners have a beneficial impact with respect to treatment outcomes.

Smile Attractiveness Evaluation of Patients Selected for a U.S.-Based Board Certification Examination

Objectives The aims of this study were to assess smile attractiveness of a collection of 68 smiling photographs of successfully treated cases submitted to the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) clinical examination and identify variables that influence the assessment.

Materials and Methods A panel of 81 non-Caucasian assessors from various clinical disciplines were instructed to score the smile attractiveness on a visual analog scale from 1 (least attractive) to 10 (most attractive) and to select which components contributed to a lesser attractive smile. The mean, standard deviations (SDs), and quartiles of the smile attractiveness were obtained with descriptive statistics. Multilinear regression analysis was performed to investigate the scores of the perceived quality of smile attractiveness when the clinical disciplines and gender of the assessors were the factors taken into consideration. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the relationship between smile attractiveness and the achievement of a perfect smile.

Results The mean (SD) rating of each clinical photograph of the anterior occlusion on smiling ranged from 3.11 (1.47) as the least attractive smile to 7.59 (1.45) as the most attractive smile. The overall mean (SD) score for smile attractiveness was 5.30 (1.10). Problems associated with teeth, gingiva, and lips corresponded with a reduction of the smile attractiveness score by 1.56, 1.82, and 1.47, respectively. Gender was not associated with smile attractiveness ratings. Orthodontists, periodontists, and prosthodontists demonstrated no difference in the ratings, while plastic surgeons were more critical than orthodontists regarding smile attractiveness.

Conclusions This study suggested that only 2 out of 68 AOB validated treatment finishes had a perfect and attractive smile.

Quantifying changes in incisor inclination before and after orthodontic treatment in class I, II, and III malocclusions

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to determine if orthodontic treatment significantly changes the upper incisor position in Class I, II, and III dental and skeletal malocclusions.

METHODS

Ninety nonextraction-treated patients were included in this retrospective cohort study and divided into three groups: Class I, Class II, and Class III. All cephalometric measurements (ANB, Wits, U1-PP, U1-SN, U1-NA, U1 perpendicular to FH and U1-L1) were taken using the Dolphin Management and Imaging Software, Version 05.05.5070.221436 (United States and Canada).

RESULTS

The posttreatment values of ANB, Wits appraisal, U1-NA mm, U1-FH mm, IMPA and U1-L1° are statistically significant (P < 0.05) among the Class I, II, and III when compared with the normal values. Also ANB° changes after orthodontic treatment in Class I, II, and III were statistically significant with the greater changes in Class III malocclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant amount of dento-alveolar compensation for the maxillary incisors not only in patients with Class II and III but also in Class I malocclusions that underwent nonextraction treatments.