Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy

Diagnostic performance of ClinCheck, Dolphin Imaging, and 3D Slicer software for Bolton discrepancy analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ClinCheck, Dolphin Imaging orthodontic software, and 3D Slicer for the analysis of Bolton discrepancy (BD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five pairs of early-stage digital models of patients treated with Invisalign were printed to measure the BD by manual method with a digital caliper (gold standard). The discrepancy values calculated by ClinCheck were obtained. In addition, the sample STL files were measured using Dolphin Imaging and 3D Slicer software to obtain BD values. To assess reliability, precision, and accuracy of the methods, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Dahlberg's formula, paired t-tests, and the Bland-Altman method were used, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc test was used to assess the difference between groups.

RESULTS

The three methods showed reliable measurements (ICC ≥ 0.7), with the values of anterior Bolton slightly higher than overall Bolton. Measurements for the anterior Bolton showed higher precision (Dahlberg's formula 0.65, 0.70, and 0.55) than those for the overall Bolton. For anterior Bolton, only the measurements obtained by ClinCheck and Dolphin Imaging were accurate (P > .05, no proportion bias), while for overall Bolton, all groups had a significant difference. The Bland-Altman plots demonstrated no consistency for anterior Bolton measurements when 3D Slicer was used and for the overall Bolton.

CONCLUSIONS

ClinCheck and Dolphin Imaging showed accuracy to quantify anterior BD. For the overall Bolton measurements, ClinCheck showed a statistical difference from the manual assessment but without relevant clinical significance.

Clear aligner therapy practices among orthodontists practicing in Canada

BACKGROUND

The acceptability and preference for clear aligner therapy (CAT) has been increasing among orthodontists, but there is still a lack of consensus regarding CAT best practices. Consequently, this study aimed to investigate CAT practices among orthodontists practicing in Canada.

METHODS

The survey was conducted among orthodontists practicing in Canada using a modified previously published survey. Sixty orthodontists participated (6.1% response rate). It consisted of 11 sections with open and closed questions related to demographic information and particularities about using or not using CAT. The survey responses were exported from REDCap to a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Wash) spreadsheet, then statistically analyzed using SPSS software (SPSS for Windows, version 21.0; IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). The comments were categorized under themes and subthemes. Data were organized in descriptive statistics, expressing frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

Almost 30% of the orthodontist's annual caseload was treated with CAT, most frequently prescribed to adult patients. Case complexity and patient cooperation were the factors that most influenced the decision to prescribe CAT. Almost half of orthodontists reported sometimes combining CAT with adjunctive fixed appliances.

CONCLUSIONS

Most orthodontists prescribe CAT, and its use is based on the malocclusion's complexity. Orthodontists who do not prescribe CAT believe that fixed appliance therapy has superior treatment outcomes.

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.

Friction and wear behavior of a mechanical oscillating strip system used for interproximal enamel reduction: a quantitative and qualitative scanning electronic microscope evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate wear and friction properties of oscillating strips in order to validate the importance of a standardized interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) sequence to preserve their efficiency and lifetime.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen complete oscillating IPR sequences were tested by means of tribological tests (Linear Reciprocating Tribometer, C.S.M. Instruments, Peseaux, Switzerland). Fifteen single 0.2-mm metallic strips underwent a long continuous cycle of 240 minutes. Strip surface roughness and waviness measurements were assessed by means of a contact probe surface profiler (TalySurf CLI 2000; Taylor Hobson, Leicester, UK) and TayMap software. Statistical analysis was performed with independent-samples t-test. Significance was at the P < .05 level. Scanning electronic microscopy analysis of strip surfaces was conducted with an FEI Quanta 200 (Hillsboro, Ore) in high vacuum at 30.00 kV.

RESULTS

Resin strips revealed a significant reduction in surface roughness (Ra, Rt, RDq) and a significant increase in waviness parameters (Wa, Wt). Rt and RDq values significantly decreased upon use of the metallic strips. Significantly higher values of Wa (+ 2.84 µm) and Wt (+0.1 µm) were observed only for the 0.2-mm metallic strips. Higher friction values were observed when the metallic strips were tested singularly rather than within the entire sequence. Lower Ra and Rt values were revealed when 0.2-mm metallic strips were tested up to 240 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a standardized oscillating sequence allows for more efficient wear performance of the strips with a significant impact on their abrasive power and lifetime.

Evaluation of the Consistency of Two Interproximal Reduction Methods in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Preliminary Study

Objective

To compare the consistency of two interproximal reduction (IPR) methods in terms of the amount of planned and performed IPR during clear aligner therapy (CAT).

Methods

Thirty-four patients who received IPR using hand-operated abrasive strips (Group 1, 20 patients, 162 teeth) and motor-driven 3/4 oscillating segmental disks (Group 2, 14 patients, 134 teeth) during CAT were included in this preliminary study. The consistency between the planned and performed IPR amounts was evaluated within and between groups for teeth and quadrants.

Results

In Group 1, the amount of IPR performed on teeth numbers 22 and 43 and in the upper left quadrant was found to be statistically less than that of planned. On the other hand, the amount of performed IPR was statistically higher on tooth number 44 and in the upper right quadrant, whereas it was statistically less on tooth number 33 when compared with the planned amount in Group 2. The inconsistency between the planned and performed IPR amounts were statistically significant only in Group 1 and for teeth numbers 11, 21, 32, 33, and 43. No significant difference was found when the same parameter was compared between the groups.

Conclusion

The consistency of IPR was found to be better with the motor-driven oscillating disk system than with the hand-operated IPR strip system.

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.

Assessment of interproximal enamel reduction planned by the digital set-up of a customized lingual orthodontic appliance: A comparison cohort study

Objectives

Interproximal enamel reduction (IER), commonly known as stripping, is a frequently used technique in orthodontic treatment to address issues related to arch length discrepancies and tooth size discrepancies (TSD). The use of digital set-up allows for precise prediction of the amount of IER required. TSD occurs when the sizes of maxillary and mandibular teeth are not in proportion to each other. This study aims to evaluate and compare the suggested IER values generated by the digital set-up of a customized lingual orthodontic appliance in both upper and lower arches, across sextants, and among different teeth concerning TSD.

Materials and methods

We analyzed suggested IER values from 809 cases. The statistical analysis was divided into two parts: part 1 focused on the number of stripped surfaces, and part 2 assessed the quantity of enamel removed. Comparisons were made between upper and lower arches, sextants, and teeth using the Friedman test, followed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni correction.

Results

The study found that mandibular and frontal stripping were more frequently suggested than maxillary and posterior stripping. Lower canines were the teeth most commonly recommended for stripping, followed by upper incisors.

Conclusion

Within the scope and limits of this cohort study, we conclude that, in general, more IER is required in the mandible as compared to the maxilla. Particularly in the anterior sextants, IER might be necessary to achieve optimal alignment and occlusion.

Experimental validation of mechanical oscillating IPR system

BACKGROUND

Interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) is a clinical procedure which involves reduction and anatomic recontouring of interproximal surfaces of enamel as a method of gaining space. The biological effects related to this clinical procedure have long been discussed. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the enamel reduction efficiency and the effects on enamel surfaces of the oscillating mechanical system for interproximal enamel reduction (IPR).

METHODS

Fifteen complete oscillating IPR sequences included one opener (0.1 mm), two metallic strips for active IPR phase (0.2 and 0.3 mm), three resin strips for active and initial polishing phases (0.4 and 0.5 mm), and one resin strip for polishing phase (0.15 mm). Sequences were selected and tested on fifteen freshly extracted teeth by means of tribological tests with alternative dry-sliding motion (Linear Reciprocating Tribometer; C.S.M. Instruments, Peseaux, Switzerland). A 3D analysis of treated surfaces was performed by using a TayMap software. Then, enamel surfaces were qualitatively evaluated before and after the tribological analysis, with a FEI Quanta 200 (FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA) in high vacuum at 30.00 kV. Images were acquired at a 30×, 100× and 300× magnification.

RESULTS

Minimum surface irregularities were observed on all treated enamel surfaces when compared with untreated ones. The 3D analysis showed a uniform wear pattern after tribological tests. Meanwhile, the SEM analysis revealed smooth and regular wear lines on treated surfaces after the entire mechanical IPR sequence. The macroscopic irregularities illustrated can be considered similar to those of untreated surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of a standardized oscillating IPR sequence allows an efficient reduction of the interproximal enamel, leaving regular and harmonious surfaces. Adequate polishing procedures should always be performed at the end of active IPR phases in order to guarantee a good long-term prognosis and proper respect of biological structures.

Novel Technique of Interproximal Enamel Reduction Based on Computer-Aided Navigation Technique-An In Vitro Study

The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the accuracy of a novel interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) technique based on a computer-aided static navigation technique with respect to a conventional free-hand-based technique for interproximal enamel reduction. Twenty anatomical-based experimental cast models of polyurethane were randomly distributed into the following IPR techniques: IPR technique based on computer-aided static navigation technique (n = 10) (GI) for Group A and conventional free-hand-based technique for the IPR (n = 10) (FHT) for Group B. The anatomical-based experimental cast models of polyurethane randomly assigned to the GI study group were submitted for a preoperative 3D intraoral surface scan; then, datasets were uploaded into 3D implant-planning software to design virtual templates for the interproximal enamel reduction technique. Afterward, the anatomical-based experimental cast models of polyurethane of both GI and FHT study groups were subjected to a postoperative digital impression by a 3D intraoral surface scan to compare the accuracy of the interproximal enamel reduction techniques at the buccal (mm), lingual/palatal (mm), and angular (◦) levels using the Student t-test. Statistically significant differences between the interproximal enamel reduction technique based on the computer-aided static navigation technique and the conventional free-hand-based technique for the interproximal enamel reduction at the buccal (p = 0.0008) and lingual/palatal (p < 0.0001) levels; however, no statistically significant differences were shown at the angular level (p = 0.1042). The interproximal enamel reduction technique based on computer-aided static navigation technique was more accurate than the conventional free-hand-based technique for interproximal enamel reduction.

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.

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.

Long-term stability of mandibular incisor alignment in patients treated nonextraction with or without interproximal enamel reduction

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare long-term mandibular incisor stability in nongrowing patients with moderate crowding treated nonextraction with and without interproximal enamel reduction (IPR).

METHODS

Forty-two nongrowing patients with Class I dental and skeletal malocclusion with moderate crowding were divided into 2 groups with an equal number of patients depending on whether IPR was used (IPR group) or not (non-IPR group) during treatment. All patients were treated by the same practitioner and used thermoplastic retainers full-time for 12 ± 1 months at the end of the active treatment. Changes in Peer Assessment Rating scores, Little's irregularity index (LII), intercanine width (ICW), and mandibular incisor inclination (IMPA and L1-NB°) were evaluated using pretreatment, posttreatment, and 8 ± 1 years postretention dental models and lateral cephalograms.

RESULTS

At the end of the treatment, Peer Assessment Rating scores and LII decreased, and ICW, IMPA, and L1-NB° increased significantly (P <0.001) in both groups. At the end of the postretention period, in both groups, LII increased, and ICW decreased significantly (P <0.001) compared with posttreatment values, whereas IMPA and L1-NB remained stable. When treatment changes were compared, increases in ICW, IMPA, and L1-NB were significantly (P <0.001) higher in the non-IPR group. When postretention changes were compared, the only significant difference between 2 groups was observed in ICW. The decrease in ICW was significantly higher in the non-IPR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term stability of mandibular incisor alignment in Class I nongrowing patients with moderate crowding treated nonextraction with and without IPR was similar.

Effects of IPR by mechanical oscillating strips system on biological structures: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

To evaluate by means of profilometric analysis and scanning electronic microscope (SEM) the effects on enamel surfaces of oscillating mechanical systems for interproximal enamel reduction (IPR). Fifteen complete (Group 1) oscillating IPR sequence and 15 single metallic strips (Group 2) for active IPR phase of 0.2 mm were selected and tested on 30 freshly extracted teeth by means of tribological tests with alternative dry-sliding motion (Linear Reciprocating Tribometer, C.S.M. Instruments, Peseaux, Switzerland). Enamel surface roughness and waviness measurements were assessed by contact probe surface profiler (TalySurf CLI 2000; Taylor Hobson, Leicester, UK) and a TayMap software for the 3D analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with independent samples t-test. Significance was established at the P < .05 level. SEM analysis of enamel surfaces was conducted with a FEI Quanta 200 (Hillsboro, USA) in high vacuum at 30.00 kV. Images were acquired at 30X, 100X, and 300X of magnification.

RESULTS

Teeth undergone Group 1 showed lower values of surface roughness (Ra - 0.34 µm, Rt - 1.55 µm) and significant increase of waviness parameters (Wa 0.25 µm, Wt 4.02 µm) when compared with those treated with Group 2. SEM evaluation showed smoothers and more regular surfaces when IPR was performed by complete IPR sequence. Single metallic strip determined more irregular surfaces characterized by extended grooves, alternated with enamel ridges and irregular fragments.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of a standardized oscillating IPR sequence determines more regular and harmonious enamel surfaces at the end of the procedure. An adequate polishing after IPR plays a crucial role to guarantee a good long-term prognosis and a good respect of biological structures.

Predictability of crowding resolution in clear aligner treatment

BACKGROUND

To assess the predictability of crowding resolution and the efficacy of different strategies to gain space during clear aligners treatment.

METHODS

A total of 10 clinicians were randomly recruited using the Doctor Locator by Align Technology (California). For each clinician, four consecutive patients treated with aligners and manual stripping were selected for a total of 40 subjects. Thus, 80 arches were collected and uploaded on the Orthoanalyzer software for arch measurements. The data were gained on the starting arch form (T0), on the virtual arch developed with digital planning (vT1), and on the arch form achieved at the end of the aligner sequences (T1). The following parameters were scored: Little's Irregularity Index, transversal arch diameters, (intercuspid, interpremolar, and intermolar width), incisor position/arch length, and enamel interproximal reduction (IPR).

RESULTS

For all the measurements, statistically significant differences were found at different stages. The predictability of crowding resolution was very high, ranging from 87% in the upper arch and 81% in the lower one. Among the different strategies to gain space, variations in sagittal incisor position were predictable, with a value of 70% both in the upper and lower arch. Conversely, changes in arch diameters were less reliable varying between 49 and 67% in the lower arch and 59-83% in the upper one. Moreover, IPR was the least accurate procedure, wavering at 49% in the upper arch and 42% in the lower arch.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictability of crowding resolution during treatment with aligners was high. However, the virtual arch forms obtained at the end of digital planning (vT1) did not correspond with the arch forms at the end of the aligner sequences (T1). The IPR was the least predictable strategy to gain space, being, perhaps, an operator-dependent procedure.

Evaluation of the impact of reference tooth morphology and alignment on model measurement accuracy

Background

The development of personalized and high-precision dental treatment is inseparable from the accurate measurement and analysis of the model. Compared with traditional plaster models, digital models allow dentists to obtain richer and more detailed inspection results. However, the measurement of digital models in clinical practice usually ignores the influence of the overall three-dimensional (3D) structure of teeth and tooth arrangement on the measurement results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of calibrated tooth axis and tooth arrangement on tooth width and arch length.

Methods

A total of 110 digital models from 80 participants were used to measure teeth width and dental arch length using the following methods: Method A, simple positioning of the proximal and distal of teeth; Method B: calibration of the clinical crown axis; and Method C: calibration of the overall 3D axis of the teeth. The Measurand model included pre- and post-orthodontic models of the same patients to assess the impact of tooth alignment on outcomes.

Results

In the aligned dentition, whether the tooth axis was calibrated had no effect on the measurement results. On unaligned dentitions, calibrating the pinion allowed for more accurate measurements, with Method C the closest to the true size. Furthermore, the arrangement of teeth affected the measurement, but there was no continuous linear correlation with arch length discrepancy (ALD).

Conclusions

Clinicians should choose appropriate measurement methods according to actual needs when performing model measurement, and should pay attention to the influence of tooth axis, tooth shape, and arrangement on the measurement results.

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

Aim

To evaluate the correspondence between the interproximal reduction (IPR) performed clinically and that programmed in ClinCheck® and further assess which teeth showed an amount of implemented IPR (I-IPR) that corresponds with that programmed in ClinCheck®.

Materials and methods

Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) ClinCheck® digital models for 75 subjects (30 males and 45 females), mean age (38 ± 15) years, were included. To calculate the amount of I-IPR, Ortho Analyzer software (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to measure the mesiodistal widths for the maxillary and mandibular teeth from second premolar to the contralateral second premolar on the initial (T0) and final (T1) STL models. I- IPR performed by tooth was obtained by comparing the mesiodistal width of each tooth at T0 and T1. The amount of programmed IPR (P-IPR) in ClinCheck® was compared to that implemented clinically using the following formula: IPR difference = (P-IPR) − (I-IPR).

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed between the average value of digitally programmed and implemented IPR per tooth for both the maxillary (p < .0001) and mandibular (p < .0001) teeth. The mean P-IPR for the maxillary teeth was 0.28 ± 0.16 mm versus the mean I-IPR of 0.15 ± 0.15 mm. In the mandibular arch, the mean P-IPR was 0.31 ± 0.17 mm, while the I-IPR was 0.17 ± 0.16 mm. The mean I-IPR was consistently lower than the mean P-IPR regardless of teeth and sites (p < 0.0001). The difference between the P-IPR compared to the I-IPR was larger for mandibular anterior teeth than for maxillary anterior teeth (p = 0.0302) and larger for maxillary posterior teeth than mandibular posterior teeth (p = 0.0059).

Conclusion

The amount of implemented-IPR in clear aligner therapy is less than that digitally programmed for most teeth. Regardless of the regions, I-IPR was consistently lower than that programmed. Mandibular anterior teeth and maxillary posterior teeth showed greater discrepancy between P-IPR and I-IPR than the maxillary anterior and mandibular posteriors. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the factors affecting the precision of IPR and the clinical implications of a significantly reduced I-IPR on treatment outcomes.