Sivaporn Sachdev1, Syrina Tantidhnazet1, Nuntinee Nanthavanich Saengfai2. 1. Resident, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentisitry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Electronic address: nuntinee.nan@mahidol.ac.th.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate accuracy of tooth movements with in-house clear aligners. METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 30 participants for anterior clear aligners with crowding not exceeding 4 mm. per arch, non-extraction cases with no changes in posterior relationship. Aligners were created with OrthoAnalyzerTM software, attachments were placed as needed and IPR was performed in required areas. The final stage of tooth movement was compared with predicted tooth movement by superimposition of the two STL models. Maxillary arch was superimposed on stable posterior teeth and best fit on palatal rugae while mandibular arch was superimposed on unmoved posterior teeth. The amount of differences in predicted and achieved tooth movements were compared. Six types of tooth movement were included in the comparison which were labial, lingual, mesiodistal, intrusion, extrusion and rotation. RESULTS: Total sample consisted of 259 anterior teeth (126 maxillary, 133 mandibular). The achieved tooth movements were significantly lesser than the predicted tooth movements in all the six types of tooth movement. Overall accuracy of tooth movement with clear aligner was 56.18%. The most accurate tooth movement was mesiodistal (72.33%). The least accurate movement was intrusion (43.28%). While mesiodistal, labial, rotation and lingual tooth movements were more predictable than intrusion and extrusion. CONCLUSION: Understanding the accuracy of different tooth movements might help in case selection, treatment plan and development or increase accuracy and predictability of in-house clear aligners.
AIM: To evaluate accuracy of tooth movements with in-house clear aligners. METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 30 participants for anterior clear aligners with crowding not exceeding 4 mm. per arch, non-extraction cases with no changes in posterior relationship. Aligners were created with OrthoAnalyzerTM software, attachments were placed as needed and IPR was performed in required areas. The final stage of tooth movement was compared with predicted tooth movement by superimposition of the two STL models. Maxillary arch was superimposed on stable posterior teeth and best fit on palatal rugae while mandibular arch was superimposed on unmoved posterior teeth. The amount of differences in predicted and achieved tooth movements were compared. Six types of tooth movement were included in the comparison which were labial, lingual, mesiodistal, intrusion, extrusion and rotation. RESULTS: Total sample consisted of 259 anterior teeth (126 maxillary, 133 mandibular). The achieved tooth movements were significantly lesser than the predicted tooth movements in all the six types of tooth movement. Overall accuracy of tooth movement with clear aligner was 56.18%. The most accurate tooth movement was mesiodistal (72.33%). The least accurate movement was intrusion (43.28%). While mesiodistal, labial, rotation and lingual tooth movements were more predictable than intrusion and extrusion. CONCLUSION: Understanding the accuracy of different tooth movements might help in case selection, treatment plan and development or increase accuracy and predictability of in-house clear aligners.