Literature DB >> 35168256

Differences in finished case quality between Invisalign and traditional fixed appliances.

Eric Lin, Katie Julien, Matthew Kesterke, Peter H Buschang.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the treatment and posttreatment effects of Invisalign aligners that incorporated SmartForce features and attachments to traditional fixed appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 66 patients, 32 aligners, and 34 fixed-appliance patients. The median ages of the aligner and braces patients were 26.7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9.8) and 25.9 (IQR: 16.6) years, respectively. Pretreatment occlusion was assessed using the ABO Discrepancy Index. Posttreatment (T1) and 6-month retention (T2) occlusions were quantified using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) scores.
RESULTS: The braces group finished treatment significantly (P < .001) earlier (0.4 years) than the aligner group. The median DI scores for the aligner and braces groups were 4.5 and 7.0, respectively, which was a statistically significant (P = .015), but clinically insignificant, difference. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the total OGS scores or any of the individual component scores at debond (T1) or after 6 months of retention (T2). During the posttreatment period, alignment and overjet worsened significantly in the aligner group, while buccolingual inclinations and occlusal relations improved. Over the same period, alignment worsened in the braces group and buccolingual inclinations improved. There was no statistically significant between-group difference in posttreatment changes of the total OGS scores.
CONCLUSIONS: While patients with simple malocclusions require 4.8 months longer treatment times with aligners than traditional braces, the treatment and 6-month posttreatment occlusal outcomes are similar.
© 2022 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ABO-OGS; Discrepancy index; Human; Invisalign; RCT; Traditional fixed appliances

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35168256      PMCID: PMC8887409          DOI: 10.2319/032921-246.1

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


  22 in total

1.  Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

Authors:  Garret Djeu; Clarence Shelton; Anthony Maganzini
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 2.  Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gabriele Rossini; Simone Parrini; Tommaso Castroflorio; Andrea Deregibus; Cesare L Debernardi
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Discomfort associated with Invisalign and traditional brackets: A randomized, prospective trial.

Authors:  David W White; Katie C Julien; Helder Jacob; Phillip M Campbell; Peter H Buschang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance.

Authors:  Roozbeh Khosravi; Bobby Cohanim; Philippe Hujoel; Sam Daher; Michelle Neal; Weitao Liu; Greg Huang
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Changes in mandibular incisor position and arch form resulting from Invisalign correction of the crowded dentition treated nonextraction.

Authors:  Laura O Duncan; Luis Piedade; Milos Lekic; Rodrigo S Cunha; William A Wiltshire
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2015-12-04       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Periodontal health during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qian Jiang; Jialing Li; Li Mei; Jing Du; Luca Levrini; Gian Marco Abbate; Huang Li
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 3.634

7.  Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces.

Authors:  Peter H Buschang; Steven G Shaw; Mike Ross; Doug Crosby; Phillip M Campbell
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  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

9.  Relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic clinical outcomes determined by the American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

Authors:  Hatice Akinci Cansunar; Tancan Uysal
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Pain perception among patients treated with passive self-ligating fixed appliances and Invisalign® aligners during the first week of orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Naif N Almasoud
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 1.372

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.