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

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and efficiency of treatment in adolescents presenting with mild malocclusions, comparing outcomes using clear aligners to fixed appliances.Materials and MethodsPatients identified retrospectively and consecutively from one private practice had been treated with either clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) or fixed appliances (0.022 Damon, Ormco, Orange, Calif; n = 26/group). Assessments of occlusion were made using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (DI) for initial records and Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) for final records. Number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time were determined from chart reviews. Data were analyzed using Pearson''s correlation, Wilcoxon rank tests, unpaired t-tests, and Chi-square tests, with significance set to P ≤ .05.ResultsPretreatment, the aligner and fixed groups showed no significant difference in overall severity (DI: 11.9 ± 5.3 vs 11.6 ± 4.8) or in any individual DI category. Posttreatment scores showed finishes for the aligner group had fewer discrepancies from ideal relative to the fixed appliance group (CRE: 30.1 ± 8.3 vs 37.0 ± 9.3; P < .01). Patients treated with aligners had fewer appointments (13.7 ± 4.4 vs 19.3 ± 3.6; P < .0001), fewer emergency visits (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.5; P < .0001), and shorter overall treatment time (16.9 ± 5.7 vs 23.4 ± 4.4 months; P < .0001).ConclusionsOutcomes for treatment of mild malocclusions in adolescents showed equivalent effectiveness of clear aligners compared to fixed appliances, with significantly improved results for clear aligner treatment in terms of tooth alignment, occlusal relations, and overjet. Assessment of the number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time showed better outcomes for treatment with clear aligners.     

Interproximal reduction of teeth: Differences in perspective between orthodontists and dentists

Objective:To determine if interproximal reduction of teeth (IPR) is perceived differently by orthodontists and general dentists.Materials and Methods:A Web-based survey containing statements about IPR was developed and randomly distributed to orthodontists and general dentists.Results:The majority of orthodontists and general dentists strongly agreed that IPR is a minimally invasive procedure that poses little risk for the development of interproximal decay. However, general dentists were more likely to perform post-IPR polishing and to apply topical fluoride than are orthodontists (P < .0001). A greater percentage of orthodontists strongly believed that the esthetic and occlusal benefits of IPR outweigh the potential risk of tooth decay when IPR was performed (P < .0001). A greater percentage of general dentists were hesitant to perform IPR, despite research supporting that IPR has little negative effect on the health of teeth.Conclusions:The results of this study disproved the null hypothesis that orthodontists and general dentists share similar views regarding the use of IPR during orthodontic treatment. General dentists were more conservative in their views of IPR and were less comfortable with performing IPR as a routine procedure. General dentists felt more strongly about the importance of post-IPR polishing and application of topical fluoride. Orthodontists were more likely to have researched the long-term effects of IPR on the health of teeth and therefore felt more comfortable performing IPR during orthodontic treatment.     

Differences in finished case quality between Invisalign and traditional fixed appliances:: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesTo compare the treatment and posttreatment effects of Invisalign aligners that incorporated SmartForce features and attachments to traditional fixed appliances.Materials and MethodsThis randomized controlled trial included 66 patients, 32 aligners, and 34 fixed-appliance patients. The median ages of the aligner and braces patients were 26.7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9.8) and 25.9 (IQR: 16.6) years, respectively. Pretreatment occlusion was assessed using the ABO Discrepancy Index. Posttreatment (T1) and 6-month retention (T2) occlusions were quantified using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) scores.ResultsThe braces group finished treatment significantly (P < .001) earlier (0.4 years) than the aligner group. The median DI scores for the aligner and braces groups were 4.5 and 7.0, respectively, which was a statistically significant (P = .015), but clinically insignificant, difference. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the total OGS scores or any of the individual component scores at debond (T1) or after 6 months of retention (T2). During the posttreatment period, alignment and overjet worsened significantly in the aligner group, while buccolingual inclinations and occlusal relations improved. Over the same period, alignment worsened in the braces group and buccolingual inclinations improved. There was no statistically significant between-group difference in posttreatment changes of the total OGS scores.ConclusionsWhile patients with simple malocclusions require 4.8 months longer treatment times with aligners than traditional braces, the treatment and 6-month posttreatment occlusal outcomes are similar.     

Discomfort associated with Invisalign and traditional brackets: A randomized,prospective trial

Objective:To evaluate differences in discomfort levels between patients treated with aligners and traditional fixed orthodontic appliances.Materials and Methods:This blinded, prospective, randomized equivalence two-arm parallel trial allocated 41 adult Class I nonextraction patients to either traditional fixed appliance (6 males and 12 females) or aligner (11 males and 12 females) treatment. Patients completed daily discomfort diaries following their initial treatment appointment, after 1 month and after 2 months. They recorded their levels of discomfort at rest, while chewing, and while biting, as well as their analgesic consumption and sleep disturbances.Results:Both treatment modalities demonstrated similar levels of initial discomfort. There were no significant sex differences. Patients in the traditional fixed appliances group reported significantly (P < .05) greater discomfort than patients in the aligner group during the first week of active treatment. There was significantly more discomfort while chewing than when at rest. Traditional patients also reported significantly more discomfort than aligner patients after the first and second monthly adjustment appointments. Discomfort after the subsequent adjustments was consistently lower than after the initial bonding or aligner delivery appointments. A higher percentage of patients in the fixed-appliance group reported taking analgesics during the first week for dental pain, but only the difference on day 2 was statistically significant.Conclusions:Patients treated with traditional fixed appliances reported greater discomfort and consumed more analgesics than patients treated with aligners. This trial was not registered.     

Communication practices and preferences between orthodontists and general dentists

Objective:To evaluate similarities and differences in orthodontists'' and general dentists'' perceptions regarding their interdisciplinary communication.Materials and Methods:Orthodontists (N  =  137) and general dentists (N  =  144) throughout the United States responded to an invitation to participate in a Web-based and mailed survey, respectively.Results:The results indicated that orthodontists communicated with general dentists using the type of media general dentists preferred to use. As treatment complexity increased, orthodontists shifted from one-way forms of communication (letters) to two-way forms of communication (phone calls; P < .05). Both orthodontists and general dentists reported that orthodontists'' communication regarding white spot lesions was inadequate. When treating patients with missing or malformed teeth, orthodontists reported that they sought input from the general dentists at a higher rate than the general dentists reported (P < .005).Conclusions:Orthodontists'' and general dentists'' perceptions of how often specific types of media were used for interdisciplinary communication were generally similar. They differed, however, with regard to how adequately orthodontists communicated with general dentists and how often orthodontists sought input from general dentists. The methods and extent of communication between orthodontists and general dentists need to be determined on a patient-by-patient basis.     

Comparison of perception of necessity of orthodontic treatment between orthodontists and dentists at dental check-ups with DAI

PurposeThe aims of this study were to examine the gaps in the perception of the necessity of orthodontic treatment between orthodontists and dentists, and identify the items influencing perception using the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI).Materials and methodsBoth dentists and orthodontists assessed the necessity of orthodontic treatment in the 693 junior and senior high school students, and orthodontists examined the occlusion of the students with DAI. The data were analyzed with Student's t-test, Bonferroni multiple comparison test and decision analysis.ResultsIn the orthodontist’ perception, clearly significant differences were observed in all DAI items between necessary and unnecessary groups. However, maxillary missing teeth, mandibular missing teeth, spacing and diastema did not show a clear difference in the dentists’ perception. In the comparison of perception between orthodontists and dentists, crowding, largest anterior maxillary irregularity and largest mandibular irregularity showed significant differences. Decision analysis demonstrated that crowding was the most important item for both orthodontists and dentists.ConclusionThere were two types of gaps in the perception of the necessity of orthodontic treatment. The first one is an individual difference among the dentists, which is related to the evaluation of missing teeth and space in the dental arches. The other is recognized as gaps in the perception between orthodontists and dentists, which are related to the amounts of crowding. It is important to realize the difference of perception and improve the mutual understanding to prevent overlooking malocclusion.     

Mechanical considerations for deep-bite correction with aligners

Correction of deep-bite malocclusions with aligners is challenging for orthodontists. This review is intended to help orthodontists improve their clinical success in treating deep-bite malocclusions with aligners. Virtual case setup, attachment design, elastics, and bite ramp utilization are discussed in order to better equip orthodontists with a new “best practices” paradigm.     

Perceptions of soft tissue laser use in orthodontics: A survey of orthodontists,periodontists, and general dentists

Objectives:To compare attitudes of orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists regarding the use of soft tissue lasers by orthodontists during the course of orthodontic treatment.Materials and Methods:An analogous survey was developed to evaluate and compare the current opinions of a representative sample (n  =  538) of orthodontists (61.3%), periodontists (24.3%), and general dentists (14.3%) regarding orthodontists'' use of soft tissue lasers.Results:The majority (84%) of orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists regarded the use of a soft tissue laser by orthodontists as appropriate. When compared to orthodontists and general dentists, a lower percentage of periodontists indicated that soft tissue laser use by orthodontists was appropriate (P < .01). For each of the eight specific soft tissue laser procedures investigated, periodontists reported a significantly lower level of appropriateness than did orthodontists and general dentists (P < .01). Around 75% of the total sample believed that referral would not be affected by the use of soft tissue lasers by orthodontists.Conclusions:Orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists differed in their opinions of the perceived appropriateness of soft tissue laser use by orthodontists, with periodontists reporting a lower level of appropriateness. Clinicians need to communicate effectively to ensure that orthodontic patients in need of adjunctive soft tissue surgery are treated to the accepted standard of care.     

Effect of clear aligner therapy on the buccolingual inclination of mandibular canines and the intercanine distance

Objective:To compare the changes in buccolinugal inclination of mandibular canines and intercanine distance in patients treated with clear aligners to those treated with preadjusted edgewise appliances.Materials and Methods:The buccolingual inclination of mandibular canines and the intercanine distance were measured on pre- and posttreatment cone-beam computed tomograms of 30 patients who had been treated with clear aligners and 30 patients who had been treated with fixed preadjusted edgewise appliances. Differences between the aligner and fixed appliance groups and between pre- and posttreatment measurements were tested for statistical significance.Results:In both groups, most of the mandibular canines had positive buccolingual inclinations (ie, their crowns were positioned lateral to their roots) both before and after treatment. While there was no difference between the groups pretreatment, the posttreatment buccolingual inclination was significantly greater in the aligner group. In the fixed appliance group, the canines became more upright with treatment, while the buccolingual inclination did not change significantly in the clear aligner group. The intercanine distance did not differ between the groups either before or after treatment. However, it increased significantly over the course of treatment in the aligner group, whereas it did not change significantly in the fixed appliance group.Conclusions:Orthodontic treatment with clear aligners tends to increase the mandibular intercanine distance with little change in inclination in contrast to treatment with fixed appliances, which leaves the intercanine distance unchanged but leads to more upright mandibular canines.     

Direct-to-consumer orthodontics: surveying the user experience

BackgroundThe rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) orthodontics has caused significant controversy among dentists and orthodontists. However, little is known about the actual harms or benefits experienced by users of at-home teeth aligners.MethodsThe authors designed a 24-item online survey to assess users’ experiences with at-home aligners. The authors recruited users for 6 months (March-August 2019) on social media platforms (Instagram, Twitter) and online forums related to DTC orthodontics. A total of 470 responses were analyzed.ResultsThe typical respondent was a white, female millennial (23-38 years old in 2019) who purchased aligners to correct crowding. More than one-half of respondents consulted with a dentist before purchasing aligners. In those interactions, the dentist most often recommended an in-office treatment. Although most respondents (87.5%) were satisfied with DTC treatment, 6.6% had to visit their dentist due to the severity of adverse effects.ConclusionsAlthough many respondents would have preferred traditional treatment from a dentist or orthodontist, they opted for DTC aligners because of cost and convenience.Practical ImplicationsRather than warning patients wholesale against at-home aligners, it might be more productive for dentists to have frank discussions with them about the risks and benefits. In parallel to pushing for increased accountability, it might be prudent to consider new ways of coexisting in this altered landscape, such as offering professional oversight of DTC treatments.     

Quantitative evaluation of implemented interproximal enamel reduction during aligner therapy:: A prospective observational study

ObjectivesTo 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 MethodsFifty 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.ResultsMean 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).ConclusionsImplemented 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.     

Quality of orthodontic treatment performed by orthodontists and general dentists: A blind comparative evaluation

Objective:To perform a blind comparative evaluation of the quality of orthodontic treatment provided by orthodontists and general dentists.Materials and Methods:Sixty cases of orthodontic treatment were evaluated—30 treated by specialists in orthodontics and 30 treated by general dentists with no specialization course. Orthodontists were selected randomly by lots, in a population of 1596 professionals, and recordings were performed based on the guideline established by the Objective Grading System proposed by the American Board of Orthodontics. Each participant was asked to present a case considered representative of the best outcome among the cases treated, regardless of the type or initial severity of the malocclusion. Statistical analysis involved the chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney tests. The level of significance was set at P  =  .05 for the statistical tests.Results:The results showed that 29 orthodontists (96.7%) presented cases considered satisfactory and would be approved on the qualification exam, whereas only 15 dentists (50%) had cases considered satisfactory. Moreover, treatment time was significantly shorter among the orthodontists (P  =  .022), and the posttreatment comparison revealed that orthodontists achieved better outcomes considering all the variables studied.Conclusions:Orthodontists spend less time on treatment and achieve better quality outcomes than cases treated by general dentists who have not undergone a specialization course in orthodontics.     

Comparative Use of Invisalign® by Orthodontists and General Practitioners

Objective:To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the use of Invisalign® between orthodontists and general practitioners.Materials and Methods:A questionnaire was mailed to all Invisalign® providers within a 35-mile radius of Stony Brook University. The answers were statistically analyzed. The level of significance was set at P < .05.Results:Orthodontists started more Invisalign® cases (P < .0001). General practitioners started more Invisalign® cases in the last 12 months (P  =  .0012). For both groups, the percentage of cases started in the last 12 months was inversely related to the number of years certified in Invisalign® (P < .0001). Significant differences in opinion (P < .001) were noted between orthodontists and general practitioners regarding the level of experience necessary to treat a Class I malocclusion with a large diastema, and whether a Class II subdivision case should be treated with Invisalign®.Conclusion:The hypothesis is rejected. The use of Invisalign® by orthodontists and general practitioners was compared, and significant differences were found.     

Preventing and treating white-spot lesions associated with orthodontic treatment: a survey of general dentists and orthodontists

BackgroundThe authors investigated the prevention and treatment of white-spot lesions (WSLs) during and after orthodontic therapy from the perspective of general dentists and orthodontists.MethodsThe authors administered a cross-sectional survey to general dentists (n = 191) and orthodontists (n = 305) in Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina.ResultsSixty-nine percent of general dentists and 76 percent of orthodontists recommended in-office fluoride treatment for patients with severe WSLs immediately after orthodontic treatment. Sixty-nine percent of general dentists reported that they had treated WSLs during the previous year, and 37 percent of orthodontists reported that they had removed braces because of patients' poor oral hygiene. Sixty percent of orthodontists referred patients with WSLs to general dentists for treatment. Eighty-five percent of orthodontists responded that they encouraged patients to use a fluoride rinse as a preventive measure. More than one-third of general dentists indicated that severe WSLs after orthodontic treatment could have a negative effect on their perception of the treating orthodontist.ConclusionsWSLs are a common complication of orthodontic treatment and their presence can result in a negative perception of the treating orthodontist by the patient's general dentist.Clinical implicationsGeneral dentists and orthodontists should work together to prevent the development of WSLs in their patients. Treatment with fluoride supplements and motivating and training patients to practice good oral hygiene will help achieve this goal. Treatment after debonding should include the topical application of low concentrations of fluoride.     

Orthodontic treatment and referral patterns: A survey of pediatric dentists,general practitioners,and orthodontists

Objective

This study aims to assess the orthodontic diagnostic skills, referral patterns, and the perceptions of orthodontic benefits of pediatric and general dentists in comparison with orthodontists.

Materials and methods

Two online surveys were e-mailed to pediatric dentists, general dentistry practitioners, and orthodontists registered as members of the Saudi Dental Society and the Saudi Orthodontic Society. The surveys included questions about the type of orthodontic treatment provided, referral trends, and timing; presumed benefits associated with successful orthodontic treatment; and diagnosis and treatment plans of seven cases representing different malocclusions.

Results

In total, 25 orthodontists, 18 pediatric dentists, and 14 general practitioners completed the survey. Only 38.8% of pediatric dentists and 7.1% of general practitioners reported that they practiced orthodontics clinically. The perceptions of the three groups toward the benefits of orthodontic treatment were comparable in the psychosocial areas. However, the orthodontists perceived significantly lesser effects of orthodontic treatment on the amelioration of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms. Pediatric dentists tended to rate the need and urgency of treatment higher, while general practitioners tended to rate the need of treatment lower. The selected treatment plans for three early malocclusion cases showed the greatest discrepancies between the orthodontists and the other two groups.

Conclusions

The orthodontists consistently and significantly downplayed the perceived benefit of orthodontic treatment to reduce TMD symptoms. Also, while there was a similarity in the diagnosis, there were notable differences in the proposed treatment approaches, perceived treatment need, and timing of intervention between the three groups of practitioners.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing mandibular incisor proclination produced by fixed labial appliances and clear aligners

Objective:To compare the mandibular incisor proclination produced by fixed labial appliances and third generation clear aligners.Materials and Methods:Patients underwent a course of orthodontic treatment using either fixed labial appliances or clear aligners (Invisalign). Mandibular incisor proclination was measured by comparing pretreatment and near-end treatment lateral cephalograms. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with mild mandibular incisor crowding (<4 mm) and Class I skeletal bases (ANB, 1–4°). The main outcome was the cephalometric change in mandibular incisor inclination to the mandibular plane at the end of treatment. Eligible patients picking a sealed opaque envelope, which indicated their group allocation, was used to achieve randomization. Data was analyzed using a Welch two-sample t-test.Results:Forty-four patients (mean age, 26.4 ± 7.7 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the fixed labial appliance or the clear aligner group. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups: Fixed appliance mean crowding was 2.1 ± 1.3 mm vs clear aligner mean crowding, 2.5 ± 1.3 mm; pretreatment mean mandibular incisor inclination for the fixed appliance group was 90.8 ± 5.4° vs 91.6 ± 6.4° for the clear aligner group. Fixed appliances produced 5.3 ± 4.3° of mandibular incisor proclination. Clear aligners proclined the mandibular incisors by 3.4 ± 3.2°. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P > .05).Conclusion:There was no difference in the amount of mandibular incisor proclination produced by clear aligners and fixed labial appliances in mild crowding cases.     

Forces and moments delivered by the PET-G aligner to a maxillary central incisor for palatal tipping and intrusion

Objective:To evaluate the effect of material thickness and width of the gingival edge on the forces and moments delivered by aligners prepared from Duran foil (PET-G) to a maxillary incisor during tipping and intrusion.Materials and Methods:Aligners prepared from PET-G of three material thicknesses (0.5, 0.625, and 0.75 mm) and three widths of gingival edges (0–1, 3–4, and 6–7 mm) were investigated during incisor palatal tipping and intrusion of 0.5 mm each. Forces and moments were measured with a six-component measuring device. The influence of aligner thickness and aligner extend on the force and moment development were tested for statistical significance (P < .05).Results:The F_x and F_z forces produced during palatal tipping and intrusion by the 0.75-mm aligner material was significantly higher than those produced by the 0.5-mm-thick material (P = .005 and P = .047, respectively). There was no statistical difference between aligner thickness of 0.5 and 0.625 mm and between 0.625 and 0.75 mm. The same behavior was observed for the palatal moment (M_y). The F_x and F_z forces produced during palatal tipping and intrusion by the aligner with an extension of 0–1 mm edge was significantly lower than that of the aligner with a larger extension (3–4 mm edge: P = .003; 6–7 mm: P = .001). However, there was no statistical difference between aligners with a 3–4-mm and a 6-mm edge. The same behavior was observed for the palatal moment (M_y).Conclusions:The forces and moments exerted by the PET-G aligner on teeth vary, depending on the material thickness, width of the aligner edge, and direction of tooth movement.     

Cephalometric comparison of adult anterior open bite treatment using clear aligners and fixed appliances

Objectives:To compare fixed appliances and clear aligner therapy in correcting anterior open bite and in controlling the vertical dimension in adult patients with hyperdivergent skeletal patterns.Materials and Methods:In this retrospective study, two treatment groups of adult (≥18 years old) hyperdivergent patients (mandibular plane angles of ≥38°) with anterior open bites were included: 17 fixed appliance patients and 36 clear aligner patients. Thirteen cephalometric measurements representing the vertical dimension were reported for each group. A two-sample t-test was used to assess differences in changes in mandibular plane angle and overbite between the two treatment groups.Results:There were no statistical differences found in the magnitude of overbite correction and the changes in any of the cephalometric measurements for vertical control. The clear aligner group showed a slightly greater amount of lower incisor extrusion (P = .009). The main mechanism of open bite correction was similar between the two treatment groups and was accomplished through retroclination of the upper and lower incisors while maintaining the vertical position of the upper and lower molars.Conclusions:Cephalometric comparison of anterior open bite correction and changes in the mandibular plane angle associated with use of clear aligners and fixed appliances did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in adult hyperdivergent patients.     

The B.S.S.O. M.Orth. Prize of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1998

Abstract

Aim: To determine the relationship between treatment need assessment scores of orthodontists, general practitioners, and pediatric dentists.

Study design: Observational.

Sample: Ten general dental practitioners, 18 orthodontists and 15 pediatric dentists reviewed 137 dental casts and recorded their opinion on whether orthodontic treatment was needed.

Results: We found a high level of agreement between pediatric dentists, orthodontists and general practitioners (Kappa range 0.86–0.95). Between the groups, the amount of agreement was lower.

Conclusions: Orthodontists, general dental practitioners, and pediatric dentists in this sample exhibit high levels of agreement on orthodontic treatment need.