Background The aims of the study were to compare the effects of Invisalign® with and without Dental Monitoring® (DM) GoLive® on the following parameters: treatment duration, number of appointments, number of refinements, total number of refinement aligners, and time to initial refinement. The patients’ perspectives on Dental Monitoring® were also evaluated using an online questionnaire. A sample of 155 consecutively treated Invisalign® patients (67 control, 88 DM) fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results The two groups were homogeneous (P > .05) for age, gender, angle classification, Little’s Irregularity Index, and number of initial aligners. The DM group had significantly fewer office visits compared to the control (7.56 vs 9.82; P < .001). There were no significant differences between the DM and control groups respectively pertaining to treatment duration (14.58 vs 13.91), number of refinements (1.00 vs 0.79), number of refinement aligners (19.91 vs 19.85), and time to first refinement (9.46 vs 9.97). Questionnaire results showed that 68.8% (44 respondents) indicate that DM scans were “easy” or “very easy” to perform while 16 responders (25%) found it “difficult” or “very difficult.” 71.9% (46 responders) were “satisfied or very satisfied” with the level of communication with the orthodontist using DM and 16% (10 responders) were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied.” The mean duration observed by patients to take a scan was 5.16 ± 3.6 min. Eighty-eight percent (56 responders) of patients prefer few office visits as possible, while 12% (8 responders) would actually prefer additional office visits. Overall, the mean satisfaction of patients with DM was 4.25 on the 5-point Likert scale. Conclusion The DM group had a significantly reduced number of appointments (7.56) compared with the control group (9.82) (a reduction of 23%) over the treatment duration. There were no significant differences between the two groups in treatment duration, number of refinements, number of refinement aligners, or time to 1st refinement. Overall, DM was well received by patients. However, there was a small percentage (usually less than 15%) that was generally unsatisfied with DM in varying aspects and preferred more frequent, traditional office visits.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives To compare the efficacy of orthodontic tooth movement with three aligner wear protocols: 7 day, 10 day, and 14 day. Materials and Methods Eighty patients were randomly allocated into three groups: group A (7-day changes), group B (10-day changes), and group C (14-day changes). The posttreatment scans were compared with the final virtual treatment simulations through digital superimposition. The differences between predicted and actual achieved treatment outcomes were computed in six angular and six linear dimensions. Differences &gt;0.5 mm for linear measurements and &gt;2° for angular measurements were considered clinically relevant. Results Within groups, and irrespective of wear protocol, all linear discrepancies in both jaws were deemed clinically insignificant (&lt;0.5 mm) while nearly all angular discrepancies were considered clinically significant (&gt;2.0°). When the three groups were compared, group C (14-day changes) showed significantly greater accuracy in the posterior segment for maxillary intrusion, distal-crown tip and buccal-crown torque, and mandibular intrusion and extrusion. The mean treatment duration in the 7-day aligner change group was nearly half that of the 14-day aligner change group (5 months vs 9 months). Conclusions Fourteen-day changes were statistically significantly more accurate in some posterior movements. However, this difference in accuracy did not exceed the threshold for clinical significance (&gt;0.5 mm/&gt;2.0°). Achieving a clinically similar accuracy between the 7-day protocol and 14-day protocol in half the treatment time suggests a 7-day protocol as an acceptable treatment protocol. Clinicians may consider slowing down to a 14-day protocol if challenging posterior movements are desired.

Introduction This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the existing evidence on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in orthodontics, its translation into clinical practice, and what limitations do exist that have precluded their envisioned application. Methods A scoping review of the literature was carried out following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed was searched until July 2020. Results Sixty-two articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 43 out of the 62 studies (69.35%) were published this last decade. The majority of these studies were from the USA (11), followed by South Korea (9) and China (7). The number of studies published in non-orthodontic journals (36) was more extensive than in orthodontic journals (26). Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) were found to be the most commonly utilized AI/ML algorithm (13 studies), followed by Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Support Vector Machine (SVM) (9 studies each), and regression (8 studies). The most commonly studied domains were diagnosis and treatment planning—either broad-based or specific (33), automated anatomic landmark detection and/or analyses (19), assessment of growth and development (4), and evaluation of treatment outcomes (2). The different characteristics and distribution of these studies have been displayed and elucidated upon therein. Conclusion This scoping review suggests that there has been an exponential increase in the number of studies involving various orthodontic applications of AI and ML. The most commonly studied domains were diagnosis and treatment planning, automated anatomic landmark detection and/or analyses, and growth and development assessment.