Predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with aligners: effect of treatment design.
Attachments
Clear aligners
Orthodontic tooth movement
Treatment design
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2023
16 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
17
11
2022
accepted:
17
12
2022
entrez:
15
1
2023
pubmed:
16
1
2023
medline:
18
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The present study was designed to define: (1) which are the less predictable OTM with Invisalign aligners when the treatment plan is designed by expert operators, (2) if the presence and shape of attachments influence the predictability of OTM and (3) if patients' demographics influence OTM predictability. The sample comprises 79 prospectively recruited patients (mean age 30.8 years; SD 12.0; 23 M, 56 F), treated by expert operators with an average of 27 aligners (SD 15) in the maxillary arch and 25 aligners (SD 11) in the mandibular arch. Post-treatment digital models and final virtual treatment plan models were exported from ClinCheck The lack of correction was significant for all movements and in all group of teeth (P < 0.01) except for the rotation of maxillary first molar. The prescribed OTM, the group of teeth and movement, the frequency of aligner change and the use of attachment influence the outcome. The greatest discrepancies in predicted and achieved tooth position were found for angular movements and rotation of teeth characterized by round-shaped crowns, for a ratio of approximately 0.4° per 1° prescribed. Optimized attachments for upper canines and lower premolar rotation seem not working properly. Second molar movements are mostly unexpressed. Furthermore, changing the aligner every 14 days will reduce the lack of correction of the 12% with respect to 7 days aligner change. Predictability of orthodontic movement with aligners still has limitations related to the biomechanics of the system: the shape of some attachments and the characteristics of aligner material need to be redefined. However, the results of this study allow to properly design the virtual treatment plan, revealing how much overcorrection is needed and which attachments are most effective.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUNDS
BACKGROUND
The present study was designed to define: (1) which are the less predictable OTM with Invisalign aligners when the treatment plan is designed by expert operators, (2) if the presence and shape of attachments influence the predictability of OTM and (3) if patients' demographics influence OTM predictability. The sample comprises 79 prospectively recruited patients (mean age 30.8 years; SD 12.0; 23 M, 56 F), treated by expert operators with an average of 27 aligners (SD 15) in the maxillary arch and 25 aligners (SD 11) in the mandibular arch. Post-treatment digital models and final virtual treatment plan models were exported from ClinCheck
RESULTS
RESULTS
The lack of correction was significant for all movements and in all group of teeth (P < 0.01) except for the rotation of maxillary first molar. The prescribed OTM, the group of teeth and movement, the frequency of aligner change and the use of attachment influence the outcome. The greatest discrepancies in predicted and achieved tooth position were found for angular movements and rotation of teeth characterized by round-shaped crowns, for a ratio of approximately 0.4° per 1° prescribed. Optimized attachments for upper canines and lower premolar rotation seem not working properly. Second molar movements are mostly unexpressed. Furthermore, changing the aligner every 14 days will reduce the lack of correction of the 12% with respect to 7 days aligner change.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Predictability of orthodontic movement with aligners still has limitations related to the biomechanics of the system: the shape of some attachments and the characteristics of aligner material need to be redefined. However, the results of this study allow to properly design the virtual treatment plan, revealing how much overcorrection is needed and which attachments are most effective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36642743
doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00453-0
pii: 10.1186/s40510-022-00453-0
pmc: PMC9840984
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2Subventions
Organisme : Università degli Studi di Torino
ID : CAST_RIC_COMP_18_01
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:6
pubmed: 11459516
J Orofac Orthop. 2011 Mar;72(2):141-9
pubmed: 21503854
Life (Basel). 2022 Sep 26;12(10):
pubmed: 36294929
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023 Jan;163(1):109-116
pubmed: 36208968
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Jul;154(1):47-54
pubmed: 29957318
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Nov;114(5):589-99
pubmed: 9810056
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Aug;162(2):193-200
pubmed: 35753894
Prog Orthod. 2022 Apr 11;23(1):12
pubmed: 35399128
J Orthod. 2021 Sep;48(3):277-287
pubmed: 34176358
Prog Orthod. 2017 Nov 13;18(1):35
pubmed: 29130127
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jun 11;14:68
pubmed: 24923279
Angle Orthod. 2020 Mar;90(2):247-254
pubmed: 31469592
Angle Orthod. 2004 Jun;74(3):356-60
pubmed: 15264647
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2006 Oct;16(5):498-505
pubmed: 16291500
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2009 May;12(2):120-8
pubmed: 19419455
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2021 Jun;22(2):119-124
pubmed: 34238001
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Mar 16;10:840622
pubmed: 35372304
J Prosthodont. 2023 Apr;32(4):331-339
pubmed: 35524587
Prog Orthod. 2018 Sep 28;19(1):37
pubmed: 30264270
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Aug;160(2):250-258
pubmed: 34217574
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Jan;159(1):e41-e48
pubmed: 33223374
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jan;135(1):27-35
pubmed: 19121497
Angle Orthod. 2017 Jan;87(1):19-24
pubmed: 27304231
Turk J Orthod. 2021 Sep;34(3):202-206
pubmed: 35110192
Angle Orthod. 2021 Mar 1;91(2):157-163
pubmed: 33296455
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Nov;148(5):862-7
pubmed: 26522047
Angle Orthod. 2015 May;85(3):454-60
pubmed: 25181252
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 10;9(1):14549
pubmed: 31601925
Angle Orthod. 2015 Mar;85(2):292-7
pubmed: 24978676
Angle Orthod. 2021 Mar 1;91(2):164-170
pubmed: 33434276
Korean J Orthod. 2019 Nov;49(6):349-359
pubmed: 31815103
Br Dent J. 2018 Jun 8;224(11):847
pubmed: 29880929
Materials (Basel). 2020 Jul 29;13(15):
pubmed: 32751305
Angle Orthod. 2015 Sep;85(5):881-9
pubmed: 25412265
Angle Orthod. 2018 Nov;88(6):675-683
pubmed: 30207487
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb;149(2):161-70
pubmed: 26827972
Angle Orthod. 2022 Nov 1;92(6):714-721
pubmed: 36037405
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Aug;162(2):173-181
pubmed: 35337703
J Orofac Orthop. 2020 Jul;81(4):229-238
pubmed: 32291482
J Orthod. 2005 Dec;32(4):282-93
pubmed: 16333050
Angle Orthod. 2019 Sep;89(5):679-687
pubmed: 30920875
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Sep;158(3):420-425
pubmed: 32620479
Angle Orthod. 2017 Nov;87(6):809-815
pubmed: 28686090
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Mar;159(3):e275-e280
pubmed: 33518439
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Nov;160(5):725-731
pubmed: 34373153