Analysis of Maxillary First Molar Derotation with Invisalign Clear Aligners in Permanent Dentition

Orthodontic aligners: between passion and science

INTRODUCTION

The benefits and safety of using orthodontic aligners have been reported more by clinical experience and expert opinion than by scientific evidence. Another important aspect is that aligners are constantly evolving. It is important to obtain evidence that allows for new updates in manufacturing technology, in the development of new movement planning protocols, in the incorporation and design of attachments, and in the aid of skeletal anchorage.

METHODS

Evidence retrieved from six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info, the Cochrane Library and the Joanna Briggs Library) is presented by means of questions and answers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that the aligners presented different levels of difficulty in performing each type of movement, with rotational and vertical movements being the most difficult to perform. Regarding perception of pain due to tooth movement, it seems to have less impact at the beginning of treatment; but dealing with more phonoarticulatory changes seems to require more treatment time in more complex cases. Aligners do not prevent the occurrence of root resorption, although the incidence and severity of resorption may be reduced, making oral hygiene easier and accepting the risk of white spots, caries and periodontal disease. Given the conflicting evidence, the release of bisphenol-A from the aligner cannot be denied. Solutions must be found to reduce the environmental impact of aligners disposal. There is an urgent need for well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Three-dimensional measurement and analysis of Mandibular Molar Distalization assisted by micro-implant anchorage combined with clear aligner

Objective

To investigate the effect of micro-implant anchorage combined with a clear aligner on the efficiency of mandibular molar distalization and the protection of anterior teeth anchorage, provide reference for clinical scheme design.

Methods

This is a prospective study. Seventeen patients who were treated in the Orthodontics Department of the Hospital of Stomatology affiliated to Fujian Medical University from 2019 to 2021 and used Invisalign clear aligners to move mandibular molars distally were included and divided into two groups according to anchorage types: Group-A and Group-B. Group-A (ten cases) were treated without micro-implant anchorage, while Group-B (seven cases) were treated with micro-implant anchorage nails for enhanced anchorage. The effect of micro-implant anchorage on crown and root distal movement of mandibular molars and the difference in three-dimensional movement between mandibular molars and mandibular central incisors were analyzed.

Results

The crown distalization efficiency of mandibular first and second molars in Group-B was 68.66% and 71.02%, respectively, which were higher than those in Group-A(p<0.05). The mandibular central incisors in Group-A showed labial displacement and a small amount of elongation, while those in Group-B showed less anchorage loss(p<0.05). In Group-A, the crown was tilted in the distal direction and moved in the buccal direction during mandibular molar distalization(p<0.05). While in Group-B, the crown was tilted in the distal directio (p<0.05) and the mandibular second molar was depressed(p<0.05).

Conclusion

In the process of mandibular molar distalization assisted by micro-implant anchorage combined with a clear aligner, better protects the anchorage of the mandibular central incisor and improves the efficiency of the molar crown distalization.

Clear Aligner Therapy: Up to date review article

The advantages of Clear Aligners Therapy (CAT) include the braces being virtually invisible, comfortable to wear, and removable for eating and brushing; that way, CAT can be used to treat a wide range of orthodontic issues. In 1999, the company Align Technology introduced the frst commercial clear aligner system called Invisalign. The Invisalign system was initially only available to orthodontists, but later became available to general dentists as well. The system quickly gained popularity among patients who were looking for a more discreet and comfortable alternative to traditional braces. In 2000, Align Technology received FDA clearance for the Invisalign system, which further increased its popularity. The biomechanics of clear aligners involve the use of custom-made tooth aligners that are specifcally shaped to guide teeth into desired positions. These aligners are typically made from flexible materials such as polyurethane or ethylene vinyl acetate and are adjusted to apply the necessary forces for tooth movement. Attachment devices, such as power ridges or buttons, are often used to enhance or assist in specifc tooth movements and for retention of the aligner. The use of attachments allows for the exertion of desired force on the teeth, which is crucial for the success of Clear Aligner Therapy. CAT should be used if patients are concerned about the esthetic appearances of their teeth-for example, actors and other individuals that rely on their appearances in public in a professional context-and if the misalignment is not severe, so that clear aligners can still work. One should not use CAT in cases of severe crowding or spacing issues that require extractions. If the patient has complex jaw discrepancies or skeletal issues or if teeth need to be moved extensively in multiple directions, CAT is likely not going to be strong enough. In conclusion, Clear Aligner Therapy is a safe, effective, and convenient orthodontic treatment option that offers patients a virtually invisible way to achieve a straighter, more beautiful smile. With continued advancements in technology and a growing body of research supporting its effectiveness, the future of Clear Aligner Therapy looks bright.

The accuracy of virtual setup in simulating treatment outcomes in orthodontic practice: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of virtual orthodontic setup in simulating treatment outcomes and to determine whether virtual setup should be used in orthodontic practice and education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Google Scholar from January 2000 to November 2022 to identify all potentially relevant evidence. The reference lists of identified articles were also screened for relevant literature. The last search was conducted on 30 November 2022.

RESULTS

This systematic review included twenty-one articles, where all of them were assessed as moderate risk of bias. The extracted data were categorized into three groups, which were: (1) Virtual setup and manual setup; (2) Virtual setup and actual outcomes in clear aligner treatment; (3) Virtual setup and actual outcomes in fixed appliance treatment. There appeared to be statistically significant differences between virtual setups and actual treatment outcomes, however the discrepancies were clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review supports the use of orthodontic virtual setups, and therefore they should be implemented in orthodontic practice and education with clinically acceptable accuracy. However, high-quality research should be required to confirm the accuracy of virtual setups in simulating treatment outcomes.

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.

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.

Predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with aligners: effect of treatment design

BACKGROUNDS

The present study was designed to define: (1) which are the less predictable OTM with Invisalign aligners when the treatment plan is designed by expert operators, (2) if the presence and shape of attachments influence the predictability of OTM and (3) if patients' demographics influence OTM predictability. The sample comprises 79 prospectively recruited patients (mean age 30.8 years; SD 12.0; 23 M, 56 F), treated by expert operators with an average of 27 aligners (SD 15) in the maxillary arch and 25 aligners (SD 11) in the mandibular arch. Post-treatment digital models and final virtual treatment plan models were exported from ClinCheck® software as STL files and subsequently imported into Geomagic Qualify ®software, to compare final teeth positions. The differences were calculated and tested for statistical significance for each tooth in the mesial-distal, vestibular-lingual and occlusal-gingival directions, as well as for angulation, inclination and rotation. In addition, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested.

RESULTS

The lack of correction was significant for all movements and in all group of teeth (P < 0.01) except for the rotation of maxillary first molar. The prescribed OTM, the group of teeth and movement, the frequency of aligner change and the use of attachment influence the outcome. The greatest discrepancies in predicted and achieved tooth position were found for angular movements and rotation of teeth characterized by round-shaped crowns, for a ratio of approximately 0.4° per 1° prescribed. Optimized attachments for upper canines and lower premolar rotation seem not working properly. Second molar movements are mostly unexpressed. Furthermore, changing the aligner every 14 days will reduce the lack of correction of the 12% with respect to 7 days aligner change.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictability of orthodontic movement with aligners still has limitations related to the biomechanics of the system: the shape of some attachments and the characteristics of aligner material need to be redefined. However, the results of this study allow to properly design the virtual treatment plan, revealing how much overcorrection is needed and which attachments are most effective.

Who Seeks Clear Aligner Therapy? A European Cross-National Real-World Data Analysis

A key step prior to clear aligner therapy (CAT) is the clinical examination and case selection, which includes understanding the specific orthodontic problem to be managed and the wider evaluation of oral health. Seeking CAT may further differ along sociodemographic parameters or across countries, as may perceived orthodontic treatment needs and oral health. We aimed to characterize patients seeking CAT across five European countries. Anonymized real-life data from one large CAT provider (DrSmile, Berlin, Germany) was retrospectively sampled for the period 1 November 2021−31 December 2021. A total of 15,015 patients (68.4% females, 31.6% males, with an age range of 18−81 years, median 30.0 years) were included. The cross-national comparison revealed a significant difference in gender distribution (p < 0.001/Chi-square), with the highest proportion of males in Italy (434/1199, 36.2%) and the lowest in Poland (457/1600, 28.6%); generally, more females sought CAT. The largest motivational factor in all countries for seeking CAT was crowding, in both males and females. By and large, patients paid out of pocket for CAT. The prevalence of caries, periodontitis, and craniomandibular dysfunction as well as the numbers of missing teeth were generally low, albeit with significant differences between sociodemographic groups and countries for caries and periodontitis. Patients seeking CAT showed a low prevalence in oral conditions but differed in their sociodemographic characteristics across countries. Dentists and orthodontists should consider these country-specific differences when planning CAT.