Influence of Invisalign treatment with interproximal enamel reduction (IER) on bone volume for adult crowding: a retrospective three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography study

Impact of molar teeth distalization by clear aligners on maxillary alveolar bone thickness and root resorption: a three‑dimensional study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of molar teeth distalization movement by clear aligners on changes in the alveolar bone thickness and orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) in maxillary molars using conebeam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three-dimensional CBCT scans of 35 adult patients (one hundred forty maxillary molars) with pre-designed selection criteria and a mean age of 24.4 ± 7.1 years were included. The measured parameters, including alveolar bone thickness for maxillary molars and root resorption (OIIRR), were analyzed using pre-and post-treatment CBCT (T0 and T1, respectively) with Invivo 6.0 software.

RESULT

Post-treatment, relevant statistically significant changes included deposition of bone in the average palatal surface of the 1st molars. The reduction of bone was seen in the average buccal surface of the first molars and both surfaces of the second molars. Regarding root length after treatment, the average maxillary 1st molar roots showed significant OIIRR (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Clear aligner treatment could effectively reduce the incidence of alveolar bone thickness reduction and OIIRR in treating Class II malocclusions compared to conventional braces, as shown in previous studies. This research will aid in fully grasping the benefits of clear aligners.

Canine root/cortical bone relation (CRCR) and the orthodontic tooth movement

This observational study evaluates three-dimensionally the relation between the root of maxillary canine and overlying labial cortical plate of bone during orthodontic canine retraction. Eighty-four bilateral maxillary canines in 42 patients were retracted in the extraction space of first premolars, using conventional orthodontic NiTi retraction spring delivering 150gm. Three-dimensional evaluation at the cusp tip, root apex, and the overlying cortical bone was done based on Classification of Root/Cortical bone relation (CRCR) before and after canine retraction. 168 observations of the canines pre- and post-retraction showed a mean distal movement of the canine cusp tip of 3.78(± 2.05) mm, while the canine root apex was almost stationary. Scarcely, 5.4% of the canine roots and root apices persisted in the medullary bone during retraction, while 16.1% contacted the overlying cortical bone. Fenestration of the overlying cortical bone by the canine roots or root apices occurred in 78.6% of the sample. The unembellished intimacy between the canine root and apex to the overlying thick dense cortical bone might have the decelerating effect on the maxillary canine retraction. The natural bone plate labial to the maxillary canine root did not yield infront nor enlarge due to canine retraction, but else defeated the current orthodontic biomechanical implementation.

How well do integrated 3D models predict alveolar defects after treatment with clear aligners?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of integrated models (IMs) constructed by pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography (pre-CBCT) in diagnosing alveolar defects after treatment with clear aligners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pre-CBCT and posttreatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 69 patients who completed nonextraction treatment with clear aligners were collected. The IMs comprised anterior teeth in predicted positions and alveolar bone from pre-CBCT scans. The accuracy of the IMs for identifying dehiscences or fenestrations was evaluated by comparing the means of the defect volumes, absolute mean differences, and Pearson correlation coefficients with those measured from post-CBCT scans. Defect prediction accuracy was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Factors possibly affecting changes in mandibular alveolar defects were analyzed using a mixed linear model.

RESULTS

The IM measurements showed mean deviations of 2.82 ± 9.99 mm3 for fenestrations and 3.67 ± 9.93 mm3 for dehiscences. The absolute mean differences were 4.50 ± 9.35 mm3 for fenestrations and 5.17 ± 9.24 mm3 for dehiscences. The specificities of the IMs were higher than 0.8, whereas the sensitivities were both lower (fenestration = 0.41; dehiscence = 0.53). The positive predictive values were unacceptable (fenestration = 0.52; dehiscence = 0.62), and the overall reliability was low (<0.80). Molar distalization and proclination were positively correlated with significant increases in alveolar defects at the mandibular incisors after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Alveolar defects after clear aligner treatment cannot be simulated accurately by IMs constructed from pre-CBCT. Caution should be taken in the treatment of crowding with proclination and molar distalization for the safety of alveolar bone at the mandibular incisors.

Three-dimensional evaluation of the effects of injectable platelet rich fibrin (i-PRF) on alveolar bone and root length during orthodontic treatment: a randomized split mouth trial

Background

The role of injectable platelet rich fibrin (i-PRF) in orthodontic treatment has not been investigated with focus on its effect on dental and bony periodontal elements.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of i-PRF in bone preservation and prevention of root resorption.

Methods

A randomized split-mouth controlled trial included 21 patients aged 16–28 years (20.85 ± 3.85), who were treated for Class II malocclusion with the extraction of the maxillary first premolars. Right and left sides were randomly allocated to either experimental treated with i-PRF or control sides. After the leveling and alignment phase, the canines were retracted with 150gm forces. The i-PRF was prepared from the blood of each patient following a precise protocol, then injected immediately before canine retraction on the buccal and palatal aspects of the extraction sites. Localized maxillary cone beam computed tomography scans were taken before and after canine retraction to measure alveolar bone height and thickness and canine root length (indicative of root resorption), and the presence of dehiscence and fenestration. Paired sample t-tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the changes between groups.

Results

No statistically significant differences in bone height, bone thickness were found between sides and between pre- and post-retraction period. However, root length was reduced post retraction but did not differ between sides. In both groups, postoperative dehiscence was observed buccally and palatally and fenestrations were recorded on only the buccal aspect.

Conclusions

I-PRF did not affect bone quality during canine retraction or prevent canine root resorption. I-PRF did not reduce the prevalence of dehiscence and fenestration.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier number: NCT 03399760. 16/01/2018).

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the correspondence between programmed interproximal reduction (p-IPR) and implemented interproximal reduction (i-IPR) in an everyday-practice scenario. The secondary objective was to estimate factors that might influence i-IPR to make the process more efficient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients treated with aligner therapy by six orthodontists were included in this prospective observational study. Impressions were taken at the beginning of treatment and after the first set of aligners. Data on p-IPR, i-IPR and technical aspects of IPR were gathered for 464 teeth. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis, and multilevel mixed regression.

RESULTS

Mean difference between p-IPR and i-IPR was 0.15 mm (SD: 0.14 mm; P = .0001), with lower canines showing the highest discrepancy. Use of burs and measuring gauges resulted in a smaller difference (respectively: coeff.: 0.09, P = .029; coeff.: -0.06, P = .013). IPR was performed more accurately on the mesial surface of teeth than on the distal surface. Round tripping before IPR resulted in a slightly more precise i-IPR compared to the previous alignment (coeff.: -0.021, P = .041).

CONCLUSIONS

Implemented IPR tends to be less than p-IPR, especially for lower canines and distal surfaces of teeth. Burs tend to provide more precise i-IPR, especially compared to manual strips; however, there is variation between the techniques. Using a measuring gauge tends to increase the precision of i-iPR. As several factors influence the implementation of IPR, particular attention must be paid during the procedure to maximize its precision.