Evaluation of interproximal reduction in individual teeth, and full arch assessment in clear aligner therapy: digital planning versus 3D model analysis after reduction

Age-stratified assessment of orthodontic tooth movement outcomes with clear aligners

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the achieved tooth movement to that predicted in the preliminary simulated digital treatment plan between adults and teenagers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records of 60 patients (30 adults; mean age: 36.6 ± 11.36 years, and 30 teenagers; mean age: 16.23 ± 2.25 years) were randomly selected. 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; https://www.slicer.org ) was used to superimpose the achieved and predicted digital models over the initial ones with regional superimposition on relatively stable first molars. 600 teeth were measured in each group for horizontal, vertical, angular movements, and transverse dimensions. Accuracy was defined as the achieved amount of movement minus predicted and was calculated for each individual and compared between teens and adults.

RESULTS

The mandibular inter-canine width accuracy was statistically significant between groups (p = 0.050). Significant under-correction in horizontal movements was noted for mandibular first premolars in teenagers compared to adults (p = 0.037). There was considerable over-correction in horizontal movements for mandibular central and lateral incisors between groups (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between groups in the vertical plane. Rotations were underachieved for maxillary first premolars, more in adults than teenagers (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of achieved versus predicted tooth movement between adults and teenagers was significant for the inter-canine width. Mandibular central and lateral incisors showed significantly greater over-correction in adults in the horizontal plane. The accuracy of rotations and vertical movements was comparable.

An Evaluation of the Estimated Aligners Needed to Correct Malocclusion Traits Using Invisalign ClinCheck™ Pro Software: A Retrospective Study

Background: This study evaluated the number of aligners that Invisalign ClinCheck™ Pro Software estimates for correcting different malocclusion traits. Methods: This retrospective study included 157 non-extraction patients over the age of 12 years old with easy to mild malocclusions who were treated with Invisalign aligners. The Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) was used to evaluate the malocclusion complexity level. The number of aligners (upper, lower, and total) required to correct the malocclusion was compared based on sex, ICON level, molar and canine class, occlusal asymmetry, overbite, overjet, crowding, incisor inclination, and Bolton discrepancy. A Mann-Whitney U test (for comparisons between two groups) or a Kruskal-Wallis test (for comparisons between three or more groups) (p < 0.05) was used to evaluate differences in the number of aligners across variable categories. Results: ICON, molar class, overbite, and overjet presented significant differences (p < 0.05) in the number of aligners (upper, lower, and total) required to correct a malocclusion. Canine class and lower dental crowding showed significant differences in the lower and total number of aligners (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The number of aligners increases when the malocclusion presents any of the following elements: the absence of molar or canine class I, an altered overjet or overbite, severe lower crowding, or a higher complexity level. The clinician should consider these malocclusion traits when estimating the number of aligners needed for correction.

Descriptive analysis of the cases published in the Align® Global Gallery

INTRODUCTION

Social media enhanced access to information, making it easier to share dental treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to conduct a descriptive analysis of the clinical cases published on the Align® Global Gallery platform.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study of 1,582 cases was conducted, data extracted referred to the following basic information: case number; patient's age; reported gender; Invisalign® package modality; treatment time; aligner exchange protocol; total number of aligners per arch; type of retainers, and inclusion of initial and final panoramic and cephalometric radiographs.

RESULTS

The majority were young (mean age 24.6 years, SD = 11.6), female patients (69.1%) with Class I malocclusion (39.4%) and crowding (77.9%). Comprehensive treatment was common (66.5%), with an average treatment time of 18 months (SD = 8.56; 95% CI = 17.6-18.5), with the most frequently reported aligner exchange protocol being 7 days (49.5%), with an average of 50.6 aligners in the upper arch (SD = 26.9; 95% CI = 49.2-51.9), and 48.7 in the lower arch (SD = 26.1; 95% CI = 47.4-50.0). Arch expansion (66.9%) and interproximal reduction (59.7%) were common approaches, while extractions were rare (4.3%). In most cases, initial lateral cephalometric (80.4%) and panoramic (93.3%) radiographs were presented. However, the final radiograph count dropped, with lateral cephalometric at 69.2%, and panoramic at 82.2% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Cases in the Align®Global Gallery mostly feature Class I patients with crowded teeth, treated with expansion and interproximal reduction. The absence of standardized information and post-treatment data restricts the applicability of these findings to broader Invisalign® treatment trends.

Effect of interproximal enamel reduction on interradicular bone volume in clear aligner therapy: a three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of inter-proximal enamel reduction (IPR) on interradicular bone volume and incisal inclination in patients undergoing clear aligner therapy (CAT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study sample consisted of 60 cases which underwent orthodontic CAT, in a private clinic in Dammam, KSA. A total of 120 CBCT scans (60 pre-treatment and 60 post- treatment) were measured using the CS 3D Imaging software to examine bone volume (using height, width, and depth of the interproximal area) and incisal inclination. The corresponding ClinCheck models were collected to determine the amount and locations of interproximal reduction performed. Little's Irregularity Index values were measured using OrthoCAD software. Paired sample t-test was used to address the measurements of bone height, width, depth, bone volume, and inclination of upper and lower incisors before and after IPR.

RESULTS

IPR did not affect the upper or lower bone volume except at LR3-2 and UL 2 - 1 where a significant difference between the bone volume with and without IPR was detected (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04 respectively). Upper and lower incisor inclination showed a statistically significant decrease after IPR. There was no correlation between IPR and bone volume difference between upper and lower teeth except at LR3-2 and UL 2 - 1.

CONCLUSIONS

IPR had no significant effect on inter-radicular bone volume except at areas of lower right canine-lateral and at areas of upper left central-lateral. There was a positive correlation between the amount of IPR and incisal inclination.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The current study findings suggest that while IPR has a minimal and localized effect on bone volume in certain areas, it plays a role in adjusting incisal inclination, highlighting its significance in the careful planning of orthodontic treatment using clear aligners.

Interproximal reduction in the refinement phase of Invisalign treatment: A quantitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

Interproximal reduction (IPR) is a common adjunct to contemporary orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to carry out a quantitative analysis of IPR prescribed in the refinement phases of clear aligner therapy with the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif).

METHODS

The digital treatment plans (DTPs) of a total of 330 patients treated by 11 orthodontists were evaluated. Relevant data regarding patient age, gender, and prescription of IPR in the initial and refined DTPs were obtained from Align Technology's digital interface, ClinCheck. Computational analyses included descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESULTS

Most (n = 182; 75.2%) of the 242 patients who satisfied inclusion criteria were females. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 29.2 (22.1-40.2) years. More than 60% of the contact sites prescribed IPR related to the initial DTP (n = 1312; 60.4%), with 39.6% (n = 859) recorded in the refinement DTPs. A median (IQR) of 1.1 (0.6-2.1) mm of IPR was prescribed per patient in the initial DTP compared with a median (IQR) of 0.6 (0.3-1.3) mm in the refinement DTPs. The most common site for prescribed IPR in all DTPs was the mandibular anterior region. Almost half (n = 108; 44.6%) of the patients were prescribed IPR at the same contact point site more than once during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 40% of the contact points that were prescribed IPR were in the patients' refinement DTPs. Most IPR was prescribed for the anterior region of the mandible. Almost half of the patients had IPR repeatedly prescribed at the same sites during treatment.

Invisalign Lite: a cross-sectional investigation of orthodontist treatment-planning practices

OBJECTIVES

To survey treatment-planning practices of orthodontists related to the Invisalign Lite clear aligner appliance (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria and treated with Invisalign Lite were selected from a database containing more than 17,000 patients. Relevant data regarding treatment-planning practices were obtained from Align Technology's treatment-planning facility, ClinCheck, and evaluated.

RESULTS

Most (n = 135; 79.9%) patients were female and had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 30.5 (23.8, 43.1) years. The median (IQR) number of aligners for the sample was 23.0 (14, 28) for the maxilla and 24 (14, 28) for the mandible. Most (n = 122; 72.2%) patients required at least one additional series of aligners. More locations for interproximal reduction (IPR) were prescribed in the mandible (mean 1.91 [1.78]) than in the maxilla (1.03 [1.78]; P < .024) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. More teeth were prescribed composite resin (CR) attachments in the maxilla (P < .0001) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. Issues regarding tooth position protocols (n = 50; 53.3%) and requirement for additional IPR (n = 68; 45.3%) were reasons for treatment plan changes before acceptance of the initial treatment plan by orthodontists.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 7 of 10 patients required at least one additional series of aligners after the initial series of Invisalign Lite aligners was completed. Prescription of IPR was more common in the mandible, and prescription of CR attachments was more common in the maxilla.

The Role of Interproximal Reduction (IPR) in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Critical Analysis of Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Interproximal reduction (IPR) has become a standard practice in orthodontic treatment, particularly in the clear aligner therapy. It became an integral part of the digital plan when using clear aligners. Given the irreversible nature of IPR, precise planning and performance is essential. This article aims to analyze and summarize the existing literature on IPR in the context of clear aligners. The goal is to help clinicians to gain essential knowledge for safely and effectively navigating IPR. The review critically examines different perspectives found in the literature, covering indications, methods, and outcomes. Topics exploring the impact of IPR on treatment outcomes include space gaining, addressing tooth size discrepancies, tooth shape adjustments, resolving malocclusion, and enhancing aesthetics. Emphasizing precision of the procedure by the clinician and awareness of contraindications, the article also discusses the impact of IPR on patients. This includes considerations like increased pulp temperature, susceptibility to cavities due to changes in enamel roughness, effects on soft tissues, and post-IPR tooth sensitivity.

Comparison of the accuracy of three interproximal reduction methods used in clear aligner treatment

OBJECTIVES

To comparatively assess 3 interproximal reduction (IPR) methods used in clear aligner treatment with regard to accuracy, and patient perception of discomfort and anxiety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 42 patients, treated with the Invisalign® system, were included in this prospective trial and received one of the following IPR methods: hand-operated abrasive strips (group 1; 14 patients, 150 teeth), motor-driven 3/4 oscillating segmental discs (group 2; 14 patients, 134 teeth), or motor-driven abrasive strips (group 3; 14 patients, 133 teeth). Accuracy was evaluated using the difference between planned and executed IPR. Anxiety and discomfort levels experienced by the patients were evaluated using a questionnaire of 17 questions.

RESULTS

The accuracy of IPR was high in groups 2 and 3; however, it was low in group 1 with the executed IPR significantly less than the planned amount. On quadrant-level, executed IPR was significantly less in the upper left quadrant in group 1, and significantly more in the upper right quadrant in group 2. The difference between planned IPR and executed IPR was significant for teeth 11, 21, 32, 33, and 43 in group 1, indicating deficiency. The average difference between planned IPR and executed IPR was 0.08 mm for group 1, 0.09 mm for group 2, and 0.1 mm for group 3. Anxiety and discomfort levels did not differ between the methods, but a negative correlation was observed between age and discomfort and anxiety levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall accuracy of the 2 motor-driven IPR methods was found to be better than the hand-operated system. Maxillary central incisors and mandibular canines were more prone to IPR deficiency when hand-operated abrasive strips were utilized. Patients were similarly comfortable with all 3 methods, and discomfort and anxiety levels decreased with age.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Motor-driven methods have proven to be more effective when compared to the hand-operated ones by means of precision, speed, and patient comfort. If the clinician favors a hand-operated method, it may be advised to perform slightly more IPR especially on mandibular canines and maxillary central incisors.

Predictability of Dental Distalization with Clear Aligners: A Systematic Review

The current review aims to evaluate the scientific evidence relating to the effectiveness of treatment with clear aligners (CAs) in controlling distalization orthodontic tooth movement. "Orthodontics, aligners" and "distalization" were the search terms used on the Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed databases with the Boolean operator "AND". The results of the last ten years of research were 146 studies; of these, 19 publications were included for this review. The distalization movement is possible with invisible masks alone, but the risk of losing anchorage in the anterior sectors is very probable. The stability of the results and the reduction of unwanted effects can be guaranteed by the use of skeletal anchoring devices and interproximal enamel reduction (IPR), with which compensations are obtained to reduce the initial overjet. Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) can be used to manage posterior anchorage after distalization of maxillary molars with aligners. This hybrid approach has demonstrated the greatest orthodontic success. TADs are useful aids to provide direct and indirect skeletal anchorage. The opposite effect must be considered when planning dental distalization, especially of the molars, in patients with large overjet, and corrective measures or the use of auxiliaries may be necessary to prevent midcourse corrections. This systematic review provides a critical evidence-based assessment of the predictability of dental distalization with CAs, an ever-evolving orthodontic technique.

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.

Treatment planning protocols with the Invisalign appliance: an exploratory survey

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the changes made by orthodontists to the initial digital treatment plan (DTP) regarding the Invisalign appliance provided by Align Technology until acceptance of the plan by the orthodontist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The DTPs of subjects who underwent treatment with the Invisalign appliance and satisfied inclusion criteria were assessed to determine the number of DTPs and changes regarding prescription of aligners, composite resin (CR) attachments, and interproximal reduction (IPR) between the initial DTP and the accepted plan. Statistical analyses were calculated via GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, Calif).

RESULTS

Most of the 431 subjects who satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were female (72.85%). More DTPs were required for subjects who had orthodontic extractions (median [interquartile range; IQR]: 4 [3, 5]) compared with those who did not (median [IQR]: 3 [2, 4], P < .0001). The median (IQR) overall number of aligners prescribed in the accepted DTP (30 [20, 39]) was greater than the initial DTP (30 [22,41], P < .001). The number of teeth used for CR attachments increased from the initial to the accepted DTP (P < .001). More CR attachments were observed in extraction treatment DTPs with a prescribed 2-week aligner change protocol compared with nonextraction treatment (P < .0001). The number of contact points with prescribed IPR increased between initial and accepted DTPs (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant changes regarding DTP protocols were observed between the initial and accepted DTPs and between nonextraction and extraction-based CAT.

Clinical outcomes of arch expansion with Invisalign: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the scientific evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of Invisalign therapy in controlling orthodontic tooth movement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus from November 2015 to November 2022 to identify relevant articles. Methodological shortcomings were highlighted, and an evaluation of the quality of the included studies was completed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Most non-randomized controlled trials (n=11; 73%) were rated with a moderate risk of bias according to the ROBINS-I tool. There were statistically significant differences between the pretreatment and posttreatment arches. The average expansion was significantly different from that predicted for each type of tooth in both the maxilla and mandible. Furthermore, the efficiency decreased from the anterior area to the posterior area in the upper arch.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that arch expansion with Invisalign® is not entirely predictable, clear aligner treatment is a viable option for addressing dentition crowding. The efficacy of expansion is greatest in the premolar area. More research focusing on treatment outcomes with different materials of aligners should be conducted in the future. Overcorrection should be considered when planning arch expansion with Invisalign. In the maxilla, the expansion rate decreases from the anterior to the posterior, and presetting sufficient buccal root torque of posterior teeth may result in improved efficiency of expansion.