Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions.
Clear aligner
Fixed appliance
Outcome assessment
Teenagers
Journal
The Angle orthodontist
ISSN: 1945-7103
Titre abrégé: Angle Orthod
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370550
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2020
01 07 2020
Historique:
accepted:
01
02
2020
received:
01
12
2019
entrez:
30
12
2020
pubmed:
31
12
2020
medline:
2
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the efficacy and efficiency of treatment in adolescents presenting with mild malocclusions, comparing outcomes using clear aligners to fixed appliances. Patients identified retrospectively and consecutively from one private practice had been treated with either clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) or fixed appliances (0.022 Damon, Ormco, Orange, Calif; n = 26/group). Assessments of occlusion were made using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (DI) for initial records and Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) for final records. Number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time were determined from chart reviews. Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon rank tests, unpaired t-tests, and Chi-square tests, with significance set to P ≤ .05. Pretreatment, the aligner and fixed groups showed no significant difference in overall severity (DI: 11.9 ± 5.3 vs 11.6 ± 4.8) or in any individual DI category. Posttreatment scores showed finishes for the aligner group had fewer discrepancies from ideal relative to the fixed appliance group (CRE: 30.1 ± 8.3 vs 37.0 ± 9.3; P < .01). Patients treated with aligners had fewer appointments (13.7 ± 4.4 vs 19.3 ± 3.6; P < .0001), fewer emergency visits (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.5; P < .0001), and shorter overall treatment time (16.9 ± 5.7 vs 23.4 ± 4.4 months; P < .0001). Outcomes for treatment of mild malocclusions in adolescents showed equivalent effectiveness of clear aligners compared to fixed appliances, with significantly improved results for clear aligner treatment in terms of tooth alignment, occlusal relations, and overjet. Assessment of the number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time showed better outcomes for treatment with clear aligners.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33378505
pii: 431828
doi: 10.2319/122919-844.1
pmc: PMC8028462
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
485-490Informations de copyright
© 2020 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.
Références
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Sep;128(3):292-8; discussion 298
pubmed: 16168325
Angle Orthod. 2016 Sep;86(5):706-12
pubmed: 27571371
Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):468-72
pubmed: 19413388
J Dent Educ. 2008 Aug;72(8):948-67
pubmed: 18676803
J Dent Res. 2010 Dec;89(12):1333-48
pubmed: 20924069
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Mar;93(3):245-50
pubmed: 3422781
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Mar;125(3):270-8
pubmed: 15014402
J Dent Res. 2003 Jan;82(1):38-42
pubmed: 12508043
Angle Orthod. 2014 Nov;84(6):974-9
pubmed: 24694016
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Feb;151(2):259-266
pubmed: 28153154
J Orthod. 2004 Jun;31(2):154-62
pubmed: 15210932
J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Dec;136(12):1724-9
pubmed: 16383056
Angle Orthod. 2007 Sep;77(5):864-9
pubmed: 17685783
Angle Orthod. 1997;67(1):67-72
pubmed: 9046401
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Nov;114(5):589-99
pubmed: 9810056
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 May 15;8(5):8276-82
pubmed: 26221410
Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2011 Jan;2(1-2):23-7
pubmed: 22238719
J Orthod. 2016 Mar;43(1):68-76
pubmed: 25939782