Literature DB >> 27778051

Patient survey on Invisalign® treatment comparing [corrected] the SmartTrack® material to the previously used [corrected] aligner material.

Anne-Kathrin Bräscher1,2, Dietmar Zuran3, Robert E Feldmann1, Justus Benrath4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In 2013, a novel material SmartTrack® was introduced to replace the previous material used for Invisalign® aligners. We conducted this study to test how this transition was accepted by patients during ongoing Invisalign® treatment.
METHODS: We surveyed a total of 72 patients (68 % women, 32 % men, mean age: 29.3 ± 9.2 years) who had worn the new material for a mean of 6 months. They completed a questionnaire with 25 items that compared both materials in terms of pain, pressure upon insertion, comfort, mucosal irritation, phonetics, discoloration, and taste.
RESULTS: On a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10, the new aligner material was rated by the respondents to cause significantly (p < 0.001) less maximum pain than the old material (2.8 vs. 3.8). Significant reductions were obtained for duration of pain (p < 0.001) and duration of pressure (2.5 vs. 1.9 days; p = 0.001) upon insertion of the aligners. Over 90 % of the respondents indicated less or equal pain during eating, felt that the new material offered a tighter fit, and provided more favorable ratings for impairment, durability, and discoloration. Improved comfort was reported by 50 % of the respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: The new material was favorably rated by the patients and showed significant reductions in pain intensity, pain duration, and pressure upon insertion. Important clinical parameters like overall comfort and impairment also were improved. The clinical effectiveness of the new material remains to be investigated.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aligner; Impairments; Invisalign®; Pain; SmartTrack®; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27778051     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0051-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  28 in total

1.  Adult patients' adjustability to orthodontic appliances. Part I: a comparison between Labial, Lingual, and Invisalign™.

Authors:  Miri Shalish; Rena Cooper-Kazaz; Inbal Ivgi; Laura Canetti; Boaz Tsur; Eytan Bachar; Stella Chaushu
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  A comparison of treatment impacts between Invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment.

Authors:  Kevin B Miller; Susan P McGorray; Randy Womack; Juan Carlos Quintero; Mark Perelmuter; Jerome Gibson; Teresa A Dolan; Timothy T Wheeler
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  A comparison of the periodontal health of patients during treatment with the Invisalign system and with fixed orthodontic appliances.

Authors:  Rainer-Reginald Miethke; Silke Vogt
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of a masticatory bite wafer and avoidance of hard food on pain associated with initial orthodontic tooth movement.

Authors:  Mladen Otasevic; Farhad B Naini; Daljit S Gill; Robert T Lee
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Pain and orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Amy M Krukemeyer; Airton O Arruda; Marita Rohr Inglehart
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Prediction of compliance and completion of orthodontic treatment: are quality of life measures important?

Authors:  N A Mandall; S Matthew; D Fox; J Wright; F M Conboy; K D O'Brien
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

Authors:  Daniel Kuncio; Anthony Maganzini; Clarence Shelton; Katherine Freeman
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 2: Dental improvements.

Authors:  Karen Michelle Clements; Anne-Marie Bollen; Greg Huang; Greg King; Philippe Hujoel; Tsun Ma
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 9.  Comparison of adverse effects between lingual and labial orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Hu Long; Yang Zhou; Ujjwal Pyakurel; Lina Liao; Fan Jian; Junjie Xue; Niansong Ye; Xin Yang; Yan Wang; Wenli Lai
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 10.  The impact of orthodontic treatment on the quality of life a systematic review.

Authors:  Yu Zhou; Yi Wang; XiuYing Wang; Gerald Volière; RongDang Hu
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 2.757

View more
  3 in total

1.  ATR-FTIR Analysis of Orthodontic Invisalign® Aligners Subjected to Various In Vitro Aging Treatments.

Authors:  Lucia Memè; Valentina Notarstefano; Francesco Sampalmieri; Giulia Orilisi; Vincenzo Quinzi
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.623

2.  Efficacy and predictability of maxillary and mandibular expansion with the Invisalign® system.

Authors:  Maria-Luisa Vidal-Bernárdez; Ángel Vilches-Arenas; Boris Sonnemberg; Enrique Solano-Reina; Beatriz Solano-Mendoza
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2021-07-01

3.  SEM characterization and ageing analysis on two generation of invisible aligners.

Authors:  Roberta Condò; Gianluca Mampieri; Aldo Giancotti; Loredana Cerroni; Guido Pasquantonio; Andrea Divizia; Annalisa Convertino; Barbara Mecheri; Luca Maiolo
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 2.757

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.