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.     

The impact of personality on adult patients' adjustability to orthodontic appliances

Objective:To evaluate the impact of psychological traits on patients'' choice of orthodontic appliances and their adjustability to orthodontic treatment.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 68 adult patients divided into three groups (28 buccal, 19 lingual, and 21 clear aligners). Prior to treatment participants filled out the Brief Symptom Inventory to assess symptoms of mental distress and the Narcissistic Vulnerability Scale to assess narcissistic personality traits. During the first week after appliance delivery and on day 14, patients completed a Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire to assess their perception of pain and four areas of dysfunction. The correlation between personality traits and patients'' reaction to treatment was evaluated.Results:Somatization was the only trait that affected the choice of lingual and clear aligner appliance. Reduced self-esteem regulation was associated with increased pain in all patients, while exploitation was associated with pain in lingual patients. Narcissistic vulnerability slightly influenced patients'' adaptability to orthodontic appliances. Although adjustability to lingual appliances was the most difficult, only two parameters were affected by personality features. In the buccal group, adjustability was affected by numerous parameters. Adaptation to the clear aligner appliance was relatively uneventful and least affected by psychological features.Conclusion:Anxious individuals tend to prefer lingual and clear aligner appliances. The selection of lingual and clear aligner appliances governs the patient''s response and recovery process, leaving little room for the effect of psychological features. On the other hand, the buccal appliance allows for greater impact of personality traits on adjustability.     

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.     

Buccal alveolar bone changes following rapid maxillary expansion and fixed appliance therapy

ObjectivesTo assess factors that may be associated with buccal bone changes adjacent to maxillary first molars after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and fixed appliance therapy.Materials and MethodsPretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained from 45 patients treated with RME and preadjusted edgewise appliances. Buccal alveolar bone thickness was measured adjacent to the mesiobuccal root of the maxillary first molar 4 mm, 6 mm, and 8 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction, and anatomic defects were recorded. Paired and unpaired t-tests were used to compare alveolar bone thickness at T1 and T2 and to determine whether teeth with posttreatment anatomic defects had thinner initial bone. Correlation analyses were used to examine relationships between buccal alveolar bone thickness changes and amount of expansion, initial bone thickness, age at T1, postexpansion retention time, and treatment time.ResultsThere was a statistically significant reduction in buccal alveolar bone thickness from T1 to T2. Approximately half (47.7%) of the teeth developed anatomic defects from T1 to T2. These teeth had significantly thinner buccal bone at T1. Reduction in alveolar bone thickness was correlated with only one tested variable: initial bone thickness.ConclusionsRME and fixed-appliance therapy can be associated with significant reduction in buccal alveolar bone thickness and an increase in anatomic defects adjacent to the expander anchor teeth. Anchor teeth with greater initial buccal bone thickness have less reduction in buccal bone thickness and are less likely to develop posttreatment anatomic defects of buccal bone.     

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.     

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.     

三种矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类2分类对切牙牙根吸收的影响

目的 比较不同矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类2分类错牙合畸形患者切牙牙根的吸收状况。方法 选择使用不同矫治器的安氏Ⅱ类2分类成年患者30例,其中传统MBT托槽、自锁托槽以及无托槽隐形矫治器的患者各10例,共计240颗切牙。收集患者治疗前后的锥形束CT(CBCT)影像学资料,并导入Dolphin Imaging软件,Mimics软件以及3-Matics软件测量分析治疗前后切牙牙根吸收情况。结果 传统MBT托槽组和自锁托槽组的上下颌中切牙以及侧切牙的牙齿长度(L)与无托槽隐形矫治器组上下颌中切牙及上颌侧切牙的牙齿长度治疗后较治疗前显著减小,差异具有统计学意义。使用无托槽隐形矫治器的患者下颌侧切牙治疗前后的牙齿长度无显著变化。而三组之间的对比,上下颌中切牙牙齿长度变化无显著统计学差异。无托槽隐形矫治器组上下颌侧切牙的牙齿长度减少量相对更低,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。此外,无托槽隐形矫治器组平均牙齿长度变化为(-0.37±0.11)mm,显著小于传统MBT托槽组(-1.32±0.47)mm及自锁托槽组(-1.05±0.38)mm。在牙根吸收区域的比较上,各组均表现为腭侧吸收多于唇侧吸收,近中吸收多于远中吸收。结论 无托槽隐形矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类2分类错牙合畸形可有效降低切牙牙根吸收严重程度。     

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.     

成人非拔牙隐形矫治前后骨开窗/开裂初析

目的：比较成人牙列拥挤非拔牙隐形矫治前后骨开窗/开裂的变化。材料与方法：选取单纯使用隐形矫治器（Invisalign）完成第一序列矫治的成人非拔牙患者治疗前后的全牙列CBCT,应用软件Mimics 19.0和Magics 21.0分离和计算骨开窗/开裂的体积,使用卡方检验和Wilcoxon检验在α=0.05水平分别检测治疗前后骨开窗/骨开裂发生率和体积的差异。结果：获得30例成年女性患者,平均年龄24.9±3.8岁。共对840颗牙齿作测量分析,牙槽骨缺损主要发生在颊侧（99.64%）,治疗前累及牙数为219颗（发生率为26.07%）,治疗后的发生率为35.24%,主要是上颌磨牙和下颌前磨牙的骨开裂发生率有显著增加（P<0.05）;治疗前人均牙槽骨缺损体积为83.67±63.33mm3,治疗后为97.16±73.79mm3,无统计学差异 （P>0.05）,其中治疗后上颌尖牙骨开窗体积有显著减少（P<0.05）,但下颌切牙骨开裂体积有明显增加（P<0.05）。结论：牙列拥挤的成人患者治疗前就存在明显的骨开窗/开裂,使用隐形矫治器非拔牙矫治有增加这些牙槽骨缺损的趋势。提示在隐形矫治中应充分评估牙槽骨的三维完整性,合理设计矫治方案以减少骨开窗/开裂的发生或加重。     

材料厚度对无托槽隐形矫治器固位力影响的实验研究

目的研究材料厚度对无托槽隐形矫治器在不同牙位脱位时固位力大小的影响,为临床设计附件及指导患者摘戴矫治器提供理论参考。方法制作标准下颌牙列阳模四副及相应的无托槽隐形矫治器四副。研究分为4组：1．00mm厚度无附件组,0．75mm厚度无附件组,1．00mm厚度有附件组,0．75mm厚度有附件组。采用万能材料试验机测试在不同牙位脱位时矫治器固位力的大小。结果不同材料厚度及附件设计影响下四组间矫治器固位力有统计学差异（F=10．10,P〈0．01）。附件能明显增加隐形矫治器固位力,1．00mm有附件组、0．75mm有附件组与其他无附件组比较,平均脱位力值大（P〈0．05）;1．00mm厚度有附件组比0．75mm厚度有附件组平均脱位力值大（P〈0．05）;脱位部位不同对固位力影响有统计学差异（F=12．03,P〈0．01）,在第二磨牙颊侧及第一磨牙舌侧测试时平均脱位力值较小。结论附件能够显著增加隐形矫治器固位力;1．00mm厚度有附件隐形矫治器固位力较大。     

Hyrax快速与慢速扩弓矫治替牙晚期上颌狭窄疗效对比研究

目的 比较Hyrax快速与慢速扩弓矫治替牙晚期上颌狭窄的疗效。 方法 选取2011年1月至2012年12月来大连市口腔医院正畸科就诊的替牙晚期上颌基骨狭窄患者60例,随机分成2组,分别采用Hyrax快速扩弓与Hyrax慢速扩弓进行矫治,扩弓前后拍摄锥形束CT（cone beam computerized tomography ,CBCT）,通过Invivo5牙科软件三维重建,分别测量扩弓前后上颌第一磨牙、第一前磨牙冠状位硬腭水平基骨宽度、颊侧牙弓宽度、双侧牙槽骨倾斜角度的交角、双侧牙齿倾斜角度的交角,轴位颊、舌侧骨质厚度。扩弓前后数据采用SPSS 17.0统计软件进行分析。结果 冠状位：Hyrax快速扩弓与Hyrax慢速扩弓在骨性开展和牙弓总宽度变化上无差别,扩弓后牙弓总宽度增加,第一前磨牙平面的骨开展量大于第一磨牙平面,牙齿和牙槽嵴颊向倾斜,牙槽嵴倾斜的角度慢速扩弓组大于快速扩弓组,牙齿倾斜的角度快速扩弓组大于慢速扩弓组;轴位：颊侧骨质厚度减少,舌侧骨质厚度增加,但Hyrax慢速扩弓组颊侧的减少量小于Hyrax快速扩弓组,两组差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 对于替牙晚期患者,与Hyrax快速扩弓相比,Hyrax慢速扩弓慢速轻力的特点更符合生理特性,并且对颊侧的骨质厚度影响小,是一种有效的扩弓方式。     

Hyrax�������������������������������խ��Ч�Ա��о�

目的 比较Hyrax快速与慢速扩弓矫治替牙晚期上颌狭窄的疗效。方法 选取2011年1月至2012年12月来大连市口腔医院正畸科就诊的替牙晚期上颌基骨狭窄患者60例,随机分成2组,分别采用Hyrax快速扩弓与Hyrax慢速扩弓进行矫治,扩弓前后拍摄锥形束CT(cone beam computerized tomography,CBCT),通过Invivo5牙科软件三维重建,分别测量扩弓前后上颌第一磨牙、第一前磨牙冠状位硬腭水平基骨宽度、颊侧牙弓宽度、双侧牙槽骨倾斜角度的交角、双侧牙齿倾斜角度的交角,轴位颊、舌侧骨质厚度。扩弓前后数据采用SPSS 17.0统计软件进行分析。结果 冠状位:Hyrax快速扩弓与Hyrax慢速扩弓在骨性开展和牙弓总宽度变化上无差别,扩弓后牙弓总宽度增加,第一前磨牙平面的骨开展量大于第一磨牙平面,牙齿和牙槽嵴颊向倾斜,牙槽嵴倾斜的角度慢速扩弓组大于快速扩弓组,牙齿倾斜的角度快速扩弓组大于慢速扩弓组;轴位:颊侧骨质厚度减少,舌侧骨质厚度增加,但Hyrax慢速扩弓组颊侧的减少量小于Hyrax快速扩弓组,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 对于替牙晚期患者,与Hyrax快速扩弓相比,Hyrax慢速扩弓慢速轻力的特点更符合生理特性,并且对颊侧的骨质厚度影响小,是一种有效的扩弓方式。     

How well do integrated 3D models predict alveolar defects after treatment with clear aligners?

ObjectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of integrated models (IMs) constructed by pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography (pre-CBCT) in diagnosing alveolar defects after treatment with clear aligners.Materials and MethodsPre-CBCT and posttreatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 69 patients who completed nonextraction treatment with clear aligners were collected. The IMs comprised anterior teeth in predicted positions and alveolar bone from pre-CBCT scans. The accuracy of the IMs for identifying dehiscences or fenestrations was evaluated by comparing the means of the defect volumes, absolute mean differences, and Pearson correlation coefficients with those measured from post-CBCT scans. Defect prediction accuracy was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Factors possibly affecting changes in mandibular alveolar defects were analyzed using a mixed linear model.ResultsThe IM measurements showed mean deviations of 2.82 ± 9.99 mm³ for fenestrations and 3.67 ± 9.93 mm³ for dehiscences. The absolute mean differences were 4.50 ± 9.35 mm³ for fenestrations and 5.17 ± 9.24 mm³ for dehiscences. The specificities of the IMs were higher than 0.8, whereas the sensitivities were both lower (fenestration = 0.41; dehiscence = 0.53). The positive predictive values were unacceptable (fenestration = 0.52; dehiscence = 0.62), and the overall reliability was low (<0.80). Molar distalization and proclination were positively correlated with significant increases in alveolar defects at the mandibular incisors after treatment.ConclusionsAlveolar defects after clear aligner treatment cannot be simulated accurately by IMs constructed from pre-CBCT. Caution should be taken in the treatment of crowding with proclination and molar distalization for the safety of alveolar bone at the mandibular incisors.     

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.     

Orthodontic bone screws: A quick update and its promising future

Orthodontic bone screws (OBSs) provide intraoral anchorage by penetrating oral mucosa and seating firmly in basilar bone (BB). Retromolar (prosthetic-type) implants introduced the extra-alveolar (E-A) concept for BB anchorage to move teeth throughout the alveolar process, but the clinical procedures were complex and expensive. Titanium alloy (Ti) miniscrews placed in inter-radicular (I-R) alveolar bone are more convenient and provide some tooth movement potential, but multiple screws are usually required and the devices often interfere with the path of tooth movement. The advantages of BB anchorage and the convenience of miniscrew are combined into the E-A OBS system. These miniscrews are relatively large in diameter (2 mm), and strong (stainless steel), which are placed intraorally in the BB of the infra-zygomatic crest (IZC) and mandibular buccal shelf (MBS). E-A OBSs provide osseous anchorage to retract the dentition and/or rotate either arch. Recovery of impactions is effectively managed with lever arm springs anchored with IZC or MBS bone screws. An emerging frontier is BB anchorage for correcting severe malocclusions with clear aligners. Since the osseous-anchored mechanics are complementary, fixed appliances and clear aligners can be used individually or in tandem to resolve a broad variety of malocclusions. This report summarizes current concepts for conservatively managing complex malocclusions such as severe crowding, skeletal discrepancies, asymmetries and impactions with the OBS system.     

Forces and moments delivered by novel,thinner PET-G aligners during labiopalatal bodily movement of a maxillary central incisor: An in vitro study

Objective:To evaluate whether overloading of teeth can be avoided by utilizing aligners with reduced thicknesses of 0.4 mm or 0.3 mm.Materials and Methods:The experimental setup included an acrylic maxillary jaw model with tooth 11 separated and fixed via a 3-D force-moment transducer to a hexapod for experimental movement. Aligners tested were fabricated on duplicate stone models using commercially available polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G) foils with thicknesses between 0.5 and 0.75 mm, and novel 0.4-mm- and 0.3-mm-thick foils. With the test aligner seated, 11 was bodily displaced in a labiopalatal direction in the range of ±0.25 mm while all six force-and-moment components exerted on this tooth were registered.Results:With the thinnest commercially available 0.5-mm aligner, median forces of −7.89 N and 8.37 N were measured for the maximum 0.25-mm movement of 11 in a labial and palatal direction, respectively. In comparison, force values were 35% and 71% lower for the novel aligners with a thickness of 0.4 mm and 0.3 mm, respectively.Conclusions:Novel “leveling” aligners with reduced thickness may reduce overloading of individual teeth during aligner therapy. Due to form instability of 0.3-mm aligners, we suggest a novel sequence of 0.4–0.5–0.75 mm for aligner systems using several foil thicknesses for load graduation within single setup steps. This would combine low stiffness of the initial aligner and relatively constant load increases throughout the treatment.     

Treatment management between orthodontists and general practitioners performing clear aligner therapy

Objective:To investigate differences in case selection, treatment management, and aligner treatment expertise between orthodontists and general practitioners.Materials and Methods:A parallel pair of original surveys with three sections (case selection, treatment management, and demographics) was sent to orthodontists (N = 1000) and general dentists (N = 1000) who were providers of aligner treatment.Results:Orthodontists had treated significantly more patients with aligners, had treated more patients with aligners in the previous 12 months, and had received more aligner training than general dentists (P < .0001). In general, case confidence increased with increasing experience for both orthodontists and general dentists. After adjusting for experience, there was a significant difference in aligner case confidence between orthodontists and general dentists for several malocclusions. General dentists were more confident than orthodontists in treating deep bite, severe crowding, and Class II malocclusions with aligners (P ≤ .0001). Significant differences were also found for all treatment management techniques except interproximal reduction.Conclusion:There was a significant difference in case selection, treatment management, and aligner expertise between orthodontists and general dentists, although the differences in case selection were small. Overall, it was shown that orthodontists and general dentists elected to treat a variety of moderate to severe malocclusions with aligners but with different utilization of recommended auxiliaries, perhaps demonstrating a difference in treatment goals.     

Forces and moments generated by aligner‐type appliances for orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The aim of this review was to systematically appraise the evidence on aligner mechanics and forces and moments generated across difference types of aligners. In vitro‐ laboratory studies for model simulated tooth movement with aligners. Database searches within Medline via Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library. Unpublished literature was also searched in Open Grey, ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), the National Research Register ( www.controlled-trials.com ) and Center for Open Science (Open Science Framework), using the terms “aligner” AND “orthodontic”. Risk of bias assessment was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random effects meta‐analyses were conducted. A total of 447 studies were identified through electronic search and after careful consideration of pre‐ defined eligibility criteria, 13 deemed eligible for inclusion, while 2 were included in the quantitative synthesis. When palatal tipping of the upper central incisor through PET‐G aligners was considered, aligner thickness of 0.5, 0.625 or 0.75 mm was not associated with a significantly different moment to force (M/F) ratio, given a common gingival edge width of 3‐4 mm. Aligner thickness does not appear to possess a significant role in forces and moments generated by clear aligners under specific settings, while the most commonly examined tooth movements are tipping and rotation. The findings of this review may be applicable to certain conditions in laboratory settings.     

Incidence of white spot lesions among patients treated with clear aligners and traditional braces

Objectives:To compare the incidence of white spot lesions (WSLs) among patients treated with aligners and those treated with traditional braces.Materials and Methods:A group of 244 aligner patients (30.4 ± 14 years) was compared to a group of 206 patients (29.2 ± 11.5 years) treated with traditional fixed braces. Consecutive cases in the late mixed or permanent dentitions who had high-quality pre- and posttreatment digital photographs available were included in the study. Each set of photographs was independently evaluated by two investigators to determine pretreatment oral hygiene (OH), fluorosis, and WSLs, as well as changes in OH and WSLs during treatment.Results:Approximately 1.2% of the aligner patients developed WSLs, compared to 26% of the traditionally treated patients. The numbers of WSLs that developed were also significantly (P < .001) less among the aligner patients. The aligner patients developed three new WSLs, while the traditionally treated patients developed 174 WSLs. The incidence of WSLs was greater for the maxillary than for the mandibular teeth, and it was greater for the canines than for the incisors. For the patients treated with traditional braces, fair or poor pretreatment OH, worsening of OH during treatment, preexisting WSLs, and longer treatment duration significantly (P < .05) increased the risk of developing WSLs during treatment.Conclusions:Patients treated with aligners have less risk of developing WSLs than do patients treated with traditional braces, which could be partially due to shorter treatment duration, or better pretreatment OH.