Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions

Borda, Alissa F; Garfinkle, Judah S.; Covell, David A.; Wang, Mansen; Doyle, Larry; Sedgley, Christine M.

doi:10.2319/122919-844.1

Cited by 66 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the increased popularity of aligner therapy and its improving effectiveness in contemporary orthodontics, 1,2 interest in enamel interproximal reduction (IPR) has grown, as it is being considered as one of the major space-gaining orthodontic procedures. The cortical bone represents the limit for orthodontic tooth movement, which should be considered especially during treatment of crowding with proclination and expansion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Kalemaj¹,

Levrini²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate the correspondence between programmed interproximal reduction (p-IPR) and implemented interproximal reduction (i-IPR) in an everyday-practice scenario. The secondary objective was to estimate factors that might influence i-IPR to make the process more efficient. Materials and Methods Fifty patients treated with aligner therapy by six orthodontists were included in this prospective observational study. Impressions were taken at the beginning of treatment and after the first set of aligners. Data on p-IPR, i-IPR and technical aspects of IPR were gathered for 464 teeth. Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kruskal-Wallis, and multilevel mixed regression. Results Mean difference between p-IPR and i-IPR was 0.15 mm (SD: 0.14 mm; P = .0001), with lower canines showing the highest discrepancy. Use of burs and measuring gauges resulted in a smaller difference (respectively: coeff.: 0.09, P = .029; coeff.: −0.06, P = .013). IPR was performed more accurately on the mesial surface of teeth than on the distal surface. Round tripping before IPR resulted in a slightly more precise i-IPR compared to the previous alignment (coeff.: −0.021, P = .041). Conclusions Implemented IPR tends to be less than p-IPR, especially for lower canines and distal surfaces of teeth. Burs tend to provide more precise i-IPR, especially compared to manual strips; however, there is variation between the techniques. Using a measuring gauge tends to increase the precision of i-iPR. As several factors influence the implementation of IPR, particular attention must be paid during the procedure to maximize its precision.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Kalemaj¹,

Levrini²

2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…kaputt können neue Schienen meist innerhalb von 2 Wochen nachbestellt werden, der Patient trägt währenddessen weiterhin das vorangegangene Schienenpaar. Störfaktoren, welche zu Komplikationen wie Schleimhautläsionen, Schmelzabrasionen und Zahnfleischentzündungen führen, können durch bessere Kontrolle der Mundhygiene während der Behandlung mit Alignern reduziert oder ganz ausgeschaltet werden [1,9].…”

Section: Unterschiede Der Aligner Therapie Bezüglich Tragekomfort Und Handhabung Gegenüber Einer Festsitzenden Zahnspangeunclassified

Aligner-Systeme in der Kieferorthopädie: ein aktueller Überblick

Gänzer

2021

Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungIm kieferorthopädischen Alltag ist es keine Seltenheit mehr, dass die Patienten eine möglichst rasche und unkomplizierte, aber v. a. ästhetische Behandlung bevorzugen. Das ist zumindest der Wunsch des Patienten.Daher wurden die Energien der letzten Jahre vermehrt auf die Entwicklung durchsichtiger Schienen zur Behandlung von Zahnfehlstellungen gelenkt, was zu einer Übersättigung des Marktes geführt hat. Bei Recherchen im Internet konnten im Jahre 2015 bereits 27 unterschiedliche Anbieter von Alignern gelistet werden.Den Ursprung fanden die Aligner jedoch schon Jahre zuvor, beginnend mit dem Gedanken, kleine Zahnfehlstellungen wie rotierte Zähne oder geringe Engstände der Frontzähne zu beheben. Alle Schienen teilen als große Gemeinsamkeit, dass sie als durchsichtige, temperaturgeformte Plastikschiene den gesamten Zahnbogen umfassen, sonst können die Modelle der verschiedenen Anbieter allerdings sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen bzw. ausgestattet sein, entsprechend den Wünschen des behandelnden Arztes.Auch heute gibt es noch Aligner-Systeme, welche sich explizit auf die Behandlung kleiner Zahnfehlstellungen und Irregularitäten spezialisiert haben, mit anderen Aligner-Systemen ist es jedoch möglich auch komplexe Zahnfehlstellungen zu behandeln.Gerade um größere Zahnbewegungen durchführen zu können, werden von einigen Aligner-Systemen Attachments für die Behandlung geplant. Durch diese zahnfarbenen Knöpfchen, welche an der bukkalen Fläche des Zahnes angebracht werden, können Kräfte appliziert werden, die sonst nicht möglich wären.Studien, welche die Wirkungsweise von Alignern allein oder den Vergleich mit fixen Apparaturen aufzeigen, wurden in der Literatur aufgrund fehlender Kontrollgruppen, fehlender Verblindung bzw. Randomisierung oder schlechter Methodik oft als mangelhaft beschrieben 1.

show abstract

“…With the launch of the Tooth Positioner (TP Orthodontics) in the mid-20th century, which allowed for only slight orthodontic movements, many advances were made within clear aligner systems to allow for more complex tooth movements and occlusal corrections [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Moreover, since Align Technology’s FDA approval in 1998, the popularity of orthodontic aligners within the general public has risen, creating a market demand and increasing the number of companies that offer these services [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reduced chair time and fewer emergencies are also listed as advantages, and treatment time seems to decrease compared to conventional systems, albeit only in mild to moderate and non-extraction cases [ 8 , 9 ]. Regarding oral hygiene, there is no consensual standpoint as some authors describe similar outcomes in aligner and conventional bracket patients, and others observe better hygiene and less plaque build-up in aligner patients and fewer enamel lesions as a result [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies indicate that clear aligner systems are less effective in controlling anterior buccolingual inclination and rotation movements in rounder teeth, and some difficulties may also be experienced to establish ideal occlusal contacts. As mentioned above, although general treatment time is decreased, in extraction cases, it is increased when compared to conventional systems [ 1 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 ]. As recently as 2020, concerns about the toxicity of clear aligners rose depending on their fabrication method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Biological Effects of 3D Resins Used in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional (3D) resin medical-dental devices have been increasingly used in recent years after the emergence of digital technologies. In Orthodontics, therapies with aligners have gained popularity, mainly due to the aggressive promotion policies developed by the industry. However, their systemic effects are largely unknown, with few studies evaluating the systemic toxicity of these materials. The release of bisphenol A and other residual monomers have cytotoxic, genotoxic, and estrogenic effects. This systematic review aims to analyze the release of toxic substances from 3D resins used in Orthodontics and their toxic systemic effects systematically. The PICO question asked was, “Does the use of 3D resins in orthodontic devices induce cytotoxic effects or changes in estrogen levels?”. The search was carried out in several databases and according to PRISMA guidelines. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies were included. The in vitro studies’ risk of bias was assessed using the guidelines for the reporting of pre-clinical studies on dental materials by Faggion Jr. For the in vivo studies, the SYRCLE risk of bias tool was used, and for the clinical studies, the Cochrane tool. A total of 400 articles retrieved from the databases were initially scrutinized. Fourteen articles were included for qualitative analysis. The risk of bias was considered medium to high. Cytotoxic effects or estrogen levels cannot be confirmed based on the limited preliminary evidence given by in vitro studies. Evidence of the release of bisphenol A and other monomers from 3D resin devices, either in vitro or clinical studies, remains ambiguous. The few robust results in the current literature demonstrate the absolute need for further studies, especially given the possible implications for the young patient’s fertility, which constitutes one of the largest groups of patients using these orthodontic devices.

show abstract

Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions

Cited by 66 publications

References 14 publications

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:

Aligner-Systeme in der Kieferorthopädie: ein aktueller Überblick

The Biological Effects of 3D Resins Used in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About