Literature DB >> 25372019

Predicted and actual end-of-treatment occlusion produced with aligner therapy.

Peter H Buschang1, Mike Ross2, Steven G Shaw2, Doug Crosby3, Phillip M Campbell4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare three-dimensional (3D) ClinCheck™ models with the subjects' actual 3D posttreatment models using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (OGS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, within-subject study included 27 consecutive cases treated with aligner therapy. The posttreatment plaster models taken immediately after treatment were scanned and converted to stereolithography (STL) files; the ClinCheck models were also converted to STL format. MeshLab software was used to measure the seven components of the OGS, including alignment, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclinations, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, overjet and interproximal contacts. An overall OGS deduction score was also calculated.
RESULTS: Compared with the posttreatment models, the ClinCheck models showed significantly (P  =  .016) fewer overall OGS point deductions (24 vs 15). These overall differences were due to significantly (P < .05) more deductions among the posttreatment models than the ClinCheck models for alignment (4.0 vs 1.0 deductions), buccolingual inclinations (4.0 vs 3.0 deductions), occlusal contacts (3.0 vs 2.0 deductions), and occlusal relations (4.0 vs 2.0 deductions).
CONCLUSION: The ClinCheck models do not accurately reflect the patients' final occlusion, as measured by the OGS, at the end of active treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aligners; Objective Grading System; Occlusion; Prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25372019     DOI: 10.2319/043014-311.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  6 in total

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

Authors:  Ting Jiang; Jian Kai Wang; Yang Yang Jiang; Zheng Hu; Guo Hua Tang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Accuracy of 3D Tooth Movements in the Fabrication of Manual Setup Models for Aligner Therapy.

Authors:  Hisham Sabbagh; Sebastian Marcus Heger; Thomas Stocker; Uwe Baumert; Andrea Wichelhaus; Lea Hoffmann
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 3.748

3.  Comparative Assessment of Clinical and Predicted Treatment Outcomes of Clear Aligner Treatment: An in Vivo Study.

Authors:  Arisha Izhar; Gurkeerat Singh; Varun Goyal; Rajkumar Singh; Nishant Gupta; Prerna Pahuja
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2019-12-01

4.  Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

Authors:  Aikaterini Papadimitriou; Sophia Mousoulea; Nikolaos Gkantidis; Dimitrios Kloukos
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  Performance of Rigid and Soft Transfer Templates Using Viscous and Fluid Resin-Based Composites in the Attachment Bonding Process of Clear Aligners.

Authors:  Cristina Valeri; Angelo Aloisio; Stefano Mummolo; Vincenzo Quinzi
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2022-02-12

6.  Consistency and Reliability Analyses of a Comprehensive Index for the Evaluation of Teeth Alignment Performance.

Authors:  Andrea Mapelli; Marco Serafin; Carolina Dolci; Daniele Gibelli; Alberto Caprioglio; Chiarella Sforza; Gianluca Martino Tartaglia
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.