Assessment of Invisalign treatment outcomes using the ABO Model Grading System

Kassas, Waseem; Al-Jewair, Thikriat; Preston, C. B.; Tabbaa, Sawsan

doi:10.1016/j.ejwf.2013.03.003

Cited by 40 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Very strong limitations were the absence of proper control groups, the absence of proper blinding procedures, the lack of sample randomization procedures, and the small sample sizes. In two studies 10,14 patients were treated by orthodontists with no experience with CAT, while in other studies 10,11,14 the comparison between CAT and fixed orthodontics was based upon malocclusion scoring scales, such as the PAR index, which presents limitations, mainly related to the generic weighting system. This review identified only one study 4 in which the intrusion of anterior teeth was investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, PAR and OGS scores revealed that aligners were as successful as fixed appliances in controlling vertical buccal occlusion, even years after the end of treatment. 10,11,14,17 Thus, on the basis of the existing literature, CAT is not recommended to treat open bite.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Djeu et al 10 observed better scores for fixed appliances than for CAT in relation to buccolingual tipping (braces: 22.8; SD 5 2.6; CAT: 24.2; SD 5 2.73; P , .05). However, in their 2013 retrospective study, Kassas et al 11 showed a significant improvement of the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System (MGS) score for buccolingual inclination, especially in the posterior region (20.74; P , .05). Kravitz et al 4 showed that lingual crown tip (53%) was significantly more accurate than labial crown tip (38%), particularly for maxillary incisors.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average amount of extrusion attempted was 0.56 mm. Two retrospective studies 5,11 outlined that movements on the vertical plane resulted in larger deviations (20. a PICOS indicates ''population (participants), intervention (or exposure for observational studies), comparator, outcomes and study design''; pts, patients; DI, discrepancy index; PBI, papillary bleeding index; OGS, objective grading system; OVJ, overjet; SPWF, second premolar width (fossa); MWF, molar width (fossa); CWCDD, intercanine width (cuspal) mean difference; FPWFDD, first interpremolar width (fossa) mean difference; FPWLDD, first interpremolar width (lingual) mean difference; SPWFDD, second interpremolar width (fossa) mean difference; SPWLDD, second interpremolar width (lingual) mean difference; APDD, arch perimeter mean difference; OTM, overall tooth movement; OVB, overbite; MGS, model grading system; T2, clinically achieved tooth movement; CBCT, cone beam computed tomography; CLIN T2, tooth movement predicted by ClinCheck; and PR, power ridge. A retrospective study 10 comparing two groups of 48 patients (CAT and braces treatment groups) revealed a similar average Orthodontics Objective Grading System (OGS) score for the alignment of marginal ridges in CAT (24.9) and braces (24.5) patients.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5,[11][12][13] Thus, conclusions with a limited level of evidence could be drawn from the review process. The most recurrent sources of bias were related to the study design, the sample size, and the lack of control group.…”

Section: Quality Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review

Rossini

Parrini

Castroflorio

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

493

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the scientific evidence related to the efficacy of clear aligner treatment (CAT) in controlling orthodontic tooth movement. Materials and Methods: PubMed, PMC, NLM, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Google Scholar, and LILACs were searched from January 2000 to June 2014 to identify all peer-reviewed articles potentially relevant to the review. Methodological shortcomings were highlighted and the quality of the studies was ranked using the Cochrane Tool for Risk of Bias Assessment. Results: Eleven relevant articles were selected (two Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT), five prospective non-randomized, four retrospective non-randomized), and the risk of bias was moderate for six studies and unclear for the others. The amount of mean intrusion reported was 0.72 mm. Extrusion was the most difficult movement to control (30% of accuracy), followed by rotation. Upper molar distalization revealed the highest predictability (88%) when a bodily movement of at least 1.5 mm was prescribed. A decrease of the Little's Index (mandibular arch: 5 mm; maxillary arch: 4 mm) was observed in aligning arches. Conclusions: CAT aligns and levels the arches; it is effective in controlling anterior intrusion but not anterior extrusion; it is effective in controlling posterior buccolingual inclination but not anterior buccolingual inclination; it is effective in controlling upper molar bodily movements of about 1.5 mm; and it is not effective in controlling rotation of rounded teeth in particular. However, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution because of the number, quality, and heterogeneity of the studies. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:881-889.)

show abstract