OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to produce the tooth position prescribed by the virtual treatment plan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Posttreatment models of 23 patients treated with SureSmile were digitally superimposed on their corresponding virtual treatment plan models utilizing best-fit surface-based registration. Individual tooth-position discrepancies between virtual treatment plan and actual outcome were computed. Discrepancies less than 0.5 mm in mesial-distal, facial-lingual, and vertical dimensions, and less than 2° for crown torque, tip, and rotation were considered clinically ideal. One-sided test of equivalence was performed on each discrepancy measurement, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Mesial-distal tooth position was clinically ideal for all teeth with the exception of maxillary lateral incisors and second molars. Facial-lingual tooth position was clinically ideal for all teeth except maxillary central incisors, premolars, and molars, and mandibular incisors and second molars. Vertical tooth position was clinically ideal for all teeth except mandibular second molars. For crown torque, tip, and rotation, discrepancy exceeded the limits considered clinically ideal for all teeth except for crown torque on mandibular second premolars and crown tip on mandibular second premolars and first molars. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted tooth position varies with tooth type and dimension of movement.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to produce the tooth position prescribed by the virtual treatment plan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Posttreatment models of 23 patients treated with SureSmile were digitally superimposed on their corresponding virtual treatment plan models utilizing best-fit surface-based registration. Individual tooth-position discrepancies between virtual treatment plan and actual outcome were computed. Discrepancies less than 0.5 mm in mesial-distal, facial-lingual, and vertical dimensions, and less than 2° for crown torque, tip, and rotation were considered clinically ideal. One-sided test of equivalence was performed on each discrepancy measurement, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Mesial-distal tooth position was clinically ideal for all teeth with the exception of maxillary lateral incisors and second molars. Facial-lingual tooth position was clinically ideal for all teeth except maxillary central incisors, premolars, and molars, and mandibular incisors and second molars. Vertical tooth position was clinically ideal for all teeth except mandibular second molars. For crown torque, tip, and rotation, discrepancy exceeded the limits considered clinically ideal for all teeth except for crown torque on mandibular second premolars and crown tip on mandibular second premolars and first molars. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted tooth position varies with tooth type and dimension of movement.
Authors: Linda C Yang-Powers; Cyril Sadowsky; Sheldon Rosenstein; Ellen A BeGole Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Lucia H C Cevidanes; Ana Emilia Figueiredo Oliveira; Dan Grauer; Martin Styner; William R Proffit Journal: Semin Orthod Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 0.970
Authors: Timothy J Alford; W Eugene Roberts; James K Hartsfield; George J Eckert; Ronald J Snyder Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Maria Eduarda Assad Duarte; Bruno Frazão Gribel; Alice Spitz; Flavia Artese; José Augusto Mendes Miguel Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Natalice S De Oliveira; Emile Rossouw; Elizabeth M B Lages; Soraia Macari; Henrique Pretti Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Olivier de Waard; Robin Bruggink; Frank Baan; Hendrikus A J Reukers; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Edwin M Ongkosuwito Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Samar Adel; Abbas Zaher; Nadia El Harouni; Adith Venugopal; Pratik Premjani; Nikhilesh Vaid Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 3.411