Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis.
ClinCheck
Dental crowding
Interproximal enamel reduction
Invisalign
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 04 2021
19 04 2021
Historique:
received:
15
09
2020
accepted:
25
02
2021
entrez:
20
4
2021
pubmed:
21
4
2021
medline:
27
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to compare the amount of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) provided on ClinCheck software with the amount of IPR carried out by the orthodontist during treatment with clear aligners. 30 subjects (14 males, 16 females; mean age of 24.53 ± 13.41 years) randomly recruited from the Invisalign account of the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Rome "Tor Vergata" from November 2018 to October 2019, were collected according to the following inclusion criteria: mild to moderate dento-alveolar discrepancy (1.5-6.5 mm); Class I canine and molar relationship; full permanent dentition (excluding third molars); both arches treated only using Comprehensive Package by Invisalign system; treatment plan including IPR. Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital models (.stl files), created from an iTero scan, were collected from all selected patients. The OrthoCAD digital software was used to measure tooth mesiodistal width in upper and lower arches before (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1) before any refinement. The widest mesio-distal diameter was measured for each tooth excluding molars by "Diagnostic" OrthoCAD tool. The total amount of IPR performed during treatment was obtained comparing the sum of mesio-distal widths of all measured teeth at T0 and T1. Significant T1-T0 differences were tested with dependent sample t-test (P < 0.05). In the upper arch, IPR was digitally planned on average for 0.62 mm while in the lower arch was on average for 1.92 mm. As for the amount of enamel actually removed after IPR performing, it was on average 0.62 mm in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the mean of IPR carried out was 1.93 mm. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR is described: this difference was on average 0.00 mm in the upper arch and 0.01 in the lower arch. The amount of enamel removed in vivo corresponded with the amount of IPR planned by the Orthodontist using ClinCheck software.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to compare the amount of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) provided on ClinCheck software with the amount of IPR carried out by the orthodontist during treatment with clear aligners.
METHODS
30 subjects (14 males, 16 females; mean age of 24.53 ± 13.41 years) randomly recruited from the Invisalign account of the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Rome "Tor Vergata" from November 2018 to October 2019, were collected according to the following inclusion criteria: mild to moderate dento-alveolar discrepancy (1.5-6.5 mm); Class I canine and molar relationship; full permanent dentition (excluding third molars); both arches treated only using Comprehensive Package by Invisalign system; treatment plan including IPR. Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital models (.stl files), created from an iTero scan, were collected from all selected patients. The OrthoCAD digital software was used to measure tooth mesiodistal width in upper and lower arches before (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1) before any refinement. The widest mesio-distal diameter was measured for each tooth excluding molars by "Diagnostic" OrthoCAD tool. The total amount of IPR performed during treatment was obtained comparing the sum of mesio-distal widths of all measured teeth at T0 and T1. Significant T1-T0 differences were tested with dependent sample t-test (P < 0.05).
RESULTS
In the upper arch, IPR was digitally planned on average for 0.62 mm while in the lower arch was on average for 1.92 mm. As for the amount of enamel actually removed after IPR performing, it was on average 0.62 mm in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the mean of IPR carried out was 1.93 mm. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR is described: this difference was on average 0.00 mm in the upper arch and 0.01 in the lower arch.
CONCLUSIONS
The amount of enamel removed in vivo corresponded with the amount of IPR planned by the Orthodontist using ClinCheck software.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33874922
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01487-2
pii: 10.1186/s12903-021-01487-2
pmc: PMC8056583
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
199Références
J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61(6):432-9
pubmed: 11126018
Prog Orthod. 2020 Jul 28;21(1):28
pubmed: 32719906
Angle Orthod. 2017 May;87(3):455-459
pubmed: 27802080
Angle Orthod. 2016 Jul;86(4):577-83
pubmed: 26636248
Stomatologija. 2014;16(1):19-24
pubmed: 24824056
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Apr;143(4 Suppl):S168-72
pubmed: 23540634
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 May;127(5):552-61; quiz 625
pubmed: 15877035
Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):1004-10
pubmed: 18004908
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996 Jan;109(1):57-63
pubmed: 8540483
Open Dent J. 2013 Oct 31;7:146-51
pubmed: 24265652
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
pubmed: 19565683
Eur J Orthod. 2003 Aug;25(4):343-52
pubmed: 12938839
Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1990 Dec;51(6):327-35
pubmed: 2286346
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jan;135(1):27-35
pubmed: 19121497
Quintessence Int. 2018;49(7):581-587
pubmed: 29881831
BMC Oral Health. 2019 Nov 14;19(1):247
pubmed: 31727047
Int Orthod. 2019 Jun;17(2):235-242
pubmed: 30981677
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jul;154(1):47-54
pubmed: 29957318
Br Dent J. 2016 Dec 16;221(12):757-763
pubmed: 27982013
J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Jan;81(1):22-29
pubmed: 31720733
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Apr;34(2):158-63
pubmed: 21447784
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Jun 8;18(1):103
pubmed: 29884150