Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces

Abstract

Objective: To compare the time efficiency of aligner therapy (ALT) and conventional edgewise braces (CEB) based on large samples of patients treated by the same highly experienced orthodontist, with the same treatment goals for both groups of patients. Materials and Methods: The retrospective portion of the study evaluated 150 CEB patients who were matched, based on mandibular crowding and number of rotated teeth, to 150 ALT patients. All records were obtained at one orthodontist's office. All of the patients had mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions (≤5 mm incisor crowding) and were treated nonextraction. Age, gender, total treatment time, total number of appointments, types of appointments, materials used, mandibular crowding, and number of rotated teeth were recorded from the patients' records. The prospective portion of the study timed the various types of appointments for both treatments with a stopwatch. Results: Compared to ALT, CEB required significantly (P < .01) more visits (approximately 4.0), a longer treatment duration (5.5 months), more emergency visits (1.0), greater emergency chair time (7.0 minutes), and greater total chair time (93.4 minutes). However, ALT showed significantly (P < .01) greater total material costs and required significantly more total doctor time than CEB (P < .01). Conclusions: Whether the greater time efficiency of ALT offsets the greater material costs and doctor time required depends on the experience of the orthodontist and the number of ALT case starts.

Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Additional handsearching of the reference lists of selected studies did not yield additional papers. Thus, a total of four studies were included in the review . The article selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA Flow Diagram (Figure ).…”

“…Three studies compared total treatment time. When analysing the average treatment duration for the two groups, Figure shows the results of the meta‐analysis from the three eligible studies.…”

“…One study compared the time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces based on a large sample of patients treated by the same highly experienced orthodontist, with the same treatment goals for both groups of patients. They found that treatment with conventional edgewise brackets required significantly more visits (approximately 4.0), more emergency visits (1.0), more emergency chair time (7.0 minutes) and a greater total chair time (93.4 minutes), compared to aligner therapy.…”

“…Djeu found that the treatment time for the braces group (1.7 years) was significantly longer than that for the Invisalign group (1.4 years). Buschang found that Invisalign treatment duration was 67% shorter than treatment with conventional edgewise braces. Aligner treatment lasted 11.5 months, whereas treatment with conventional edgewise braces required 17 months, but this could be the result of having more severe cases in the conventional appliance group.…”

“…Only one study compared the time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces. It was found that patients with aligner therapy spent 50% less time in the chair, had 67% fewer appointments and needed more emergency visits than patients treated with conventional edgewise appliances.…”