Invisalign(®) treatment can successfully resolve mandibular arch crowding using a combination of buccal arch expansion, interproximal reduction, and lower incisor proclination. When there is <6 mm of crowding, lower incisor position remained relatively stable. The lower incisors proclined and protruded in the more severely crowded dentitions (>6 mm).

Objectives To investigate adolescent orthodontic patient experiences and quality of life with fixed appliances compared to Invisalign. Materials and Methods Adolescent patients in active treatment with Invisalign or fixed appliances for a minimum of 6 months were provided with the Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Short Form 19 questionnaire, along with additional items of interest that were assessed separately. Pearson's χ2 test was used to compare responses (P &lt; .05), and unpaired t-tests (P &lt; .05) were used to test for differences in mean satisfaction, quality of life, and domain scores. Results In total, 74 patients (37 in each treatment group) participated. Overall, no significant differences were noted in the mean quality of life, satisfaction, or domain scores between the two groups. A significant difference was noted in the time taken to adjust to appliances, with the Invisalign group demonstrating faster adaptation. Additionally, the fixed appliance group was 3.8 times more likely to report missing school because of their appliance (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 12.5) and 2.7 times more likely to report having difficulty eating certain foods (95% CI: 1.1, 7.1). When the sample of females between the ages of 14 and 18 was analyzed, the Invisalign group reported feeling attractive more often than the fixed appliance group. Conclusions Both treatment groups were generally very satisfied with their treatment modality. The overall quality of life of adolescent orthodontic patients undergoing treatment with fixed appliances and Invisalign for a minimum of 6 months was similar.

Objectives To compare patients' experiences with the Invisalign Teen with Mandibular Advancement® (ITMA) and Twin Block (TB) appliances, both initially and after several months of wear. Materials and Methods Sixty-eight patients completed an anonymous survey after at least 2 months of wearing ITMA or TB. Forty-five patients treated with ITMA (18 boys, 27 girls, mean age 13.6 years, SD ± 1.54) and 23 patients treated with TB (13 boys, 10 girls, mean age 10.60 years, SD ± 1.92) were included. Results More patients using the TB found their appliance to be visually intimidating as compared with patients using the ITMA (21.7% vs 8.9%). TB was more noticeable than the ITMA (69.6% vs 25%). Appliance insertion was more difficult for TB patients (21.8% vs 4.44% for ITMA). After several months, there were more reports of tooth soreness and lip/cheek soreness in the ITMA group. TB patients were more embarrassed even after several months (14.3% vs 0% for ITMA). More TB patients required extra appointments for breakage (50% vs 22.2% for ITMA). Speech, drooling, and jaw and lip/cheek soreness worsened initially for both groups but improved over time. There were no differences between the groups regarding visible facial changes, satisfaction with treatment experience, or time to acclimatize to the appliance. Conclusions TB and ITMA patients shared similar experiences for most of the parameters measured, but there were significant differences between the groups regarding appliance wear and management, discomfort, and function.