Comparison of achieved and predicted crown movement in adults after 4 first premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign

Dai, Fanfan; Xu, Tianmin; Shu, Guang

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.06.041

Cited by 43 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The control model without Class II elastics exhibited tipping movement rather than bodily movement. Lingual tipping of the central incisor, lingual and distal tipping of the canine were present in the control model, which is supported by Dai et al’s study [ 31 ]. The mesial tipping of the first molar and tipping of the teeth adjacent to the extraction sites have been reported by Baldwin et al [ 7 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Biomechanical analysis of effective mandibular en-masse retraction using Class II elastics with a clear aligner: a finite element study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to evaluate the displacement and stress distribution of mandibular dentition by various positions of the Class II elastics during en-masse retraction in clear aligner therapy. Methods Models including a mandibular dentition (without first premolars), periodontal ligament (PDL), mandible, as well as attachments, aligners and buttons were constructed and imported into Ansys Workbench 2019 (ANSYS, USA) to generate the three-dimensional (3D) finite element model. Six combinations were created: (1) aligner alone (control), (2)-(5) Class II elastics with buttons placed on the mesiobuccal (MB), distobuccal (DB), mesiolingual (ML) and distolingual (DL) surface of the mandibular first molar, and (6) Class II elastics with a button on the aligner corresponding to the mesiobuccal surface of the mandibular first molar (AMB). The elastic force was set to 2 N for simulations. Results The central incisors appeared lingual tipping in the six models. The lingual crown movement of the central incisors was 0.039 mm, 0.034 mm, 0.034 mm, 0.042 mm, 0.041 mm, and 0.034 mm for control model, MB model, DB model, ML model, DL model, and AMB model, respectively. The first molars showed mesial tipping in the six models. The mesial movement of the mesiobuccal cusps of the first molars was 0.045 mm, 0.060 mm, 0.063 mm, 0.048 mm, 0.051 mm, and 0.055 mm for control model, MB model, DB model, ML model, DL model, and AMB model, respectively. Conclusions Class II elastics reduced lingual tipping of anterior teeth but aggravated mesial tipping of posterior teeth. Mesiolingual elastics developed minimum mesial tipping of the posterior teeth. When Class II elastics are required, attaching elastics on the mesiolingual surface of the mandibular first molar is recommended to prevent mandibular anchorage loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Biomechanical analysis of effective mandibular en-masse retraction using Class II elastics with a clear aligner: a finite element study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggested Invisalign ® was not sufficiently in retracting the maxillary incisors, which showed limited ability to correct sagittal and anterior vertical discrepancies. [ 22 ] Systemic review and clinical study also reported the intrusion of maxillary incisors and correction of deep overbite with Invisalign ® were insufficient, [ 23 – 25 ] which may resulting from the poor expression of prescribed overbite reduction (no more than 39.2%) of Invisalign ® as reported by Blundell et al [ 25 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of maxillary incisor retraction effects for patients with first premolar extractions between Damon Q and Invisalign®: A retrospective study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Torque control of maxillary incisors is very important in maxillary protrusion patients with first premolars extraction, but the efficacy of maxillary incisor retraction of clear aligners is still controversial now. This retrospective study was aimed to compare the retraction effects between Damon Q and Invisalign ® appliances in patients with first premolar extractions. 59 patients (33 cases with Damon Q and 26 cases with Invisalign ® ) with first premolar extraction were selected in this study. Subsequently, patients of each group were allocated into three subgroups according to the pretreatment value of U1-NA (°). The retraction effects of maxillary incisors and upper lips were accessed by the variations of cephalometric, overbite and overjet measurements. Treatment duration with Invisalign ® (31.4 ± 6.4 months) was longer than Damon Q (27.7 ± 6.3 months) (P = .03). The angular measurements, U1-NA (°) and U1-SN (°) showed more lingual crown inclinations in Invisalign ® group than Damon Q group (P ≤ .04). When evaluating linear measurements, the retractions of the maxillary incisors and upper lip positions showed no significant differences (P ≥ .13). Invisalign ® group also showed more lingual crown retractions and labial root deviations compared to Damon Q group in subgroup Ⅲ (P ≤ .037). As regards to the molar relationship, Invisalign ® displayed less Class Ⅰ molar relationship than Damon Q group. The increased overbite of anterior incisors was also showed in the Invisalign ® treatment group (P ≤ .047). Invisalign ® was not sufficiently effective in retracting maxillary incisors compared with Damon Q appliances. Invisalign ® led to more lingual inclination movement and increased overbite.

show abstract

“…4 Several clinical studies and systematic reviews have demonstrated that a clear aligner system has its strengths and weaknesses, and the programmed orthodontic tooth movement sometimes may not be fully achieved. [5][6][7][8] To enhance the clinical efficacy and patient experience of clear aligner treatment, Align Technology (San Jose, California, USA) has introduced several modifications involving optimised attachments, bite ramps, power ridges, SmartForce, SmartTrack material, and SmartStage technology. 4 A recent study by Haouili et al reported a marked improvement in the overall accuracy of clear aligners for all tooth movement, but the efficiency of tooth movement using aligners remained relatively the same.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing clear aligners every 10 days or 14 days ? A randomised controlled trial

Zhao

Long

et al. 2023

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare 10-day and 14-day change regimens to achieve orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in patients wearing clear aligners and to determine their subsequent pain perception. Material and methods: A total of 175 clear aligner patients were assessed for eligibility. Seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to a 10-day group (N = 36) and a 14-day group (N = 36) and were instructed to change the appliances every 10 or 14 days, respectively. OTM efficacy and OTM variation between the actual and predicted OTM digital models measured by shell-to-shell deviation, as well as pain perception determined by a visual analog scale (VAS), were assessed at T0 (baseline, before the placement of the aligners), T1 (stage 8, after completion of aligners #8), and T2 (stage 16, after completion of aligners #16). Results: The 10-day and 14-day groups showed similar OTM efficacy at both T1 and T2 for all types of tooth movements (p > 0.09 for all) and similar OTM shell-to-shell deviation at T1 (p = 0.06) and T2 (p = 0.22). The two groups also had similar VAS scores of pain perception throughout the study (p > 0.05 for all). Conclusion: The 10-day and 14-day groups showed similar tooth movement and pain perception, suggesting that the clear aligners may be changed every 10 days without a significant compromise in the clinical efficacy of OTM and patient comfort. Trial registration: ChiCTR, ChiCTR-IOR-15007532. Registered 17 November 2015, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=12500

show abstract

Comparison of achieved and predicted crown movement in adults after 4 first premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign

Cited by 43 publications

References 24 publications

Biomechanical analysis of effective mandibular en-masse retraction using Class II elastics with a clear aligner: a finite element study

Biomechanical analysis of effective mandibular en-masse retraction using Class II elastics with a clear aligner: a finite element study

Comparisons of maxillary incisor retraction effects for patients with first premolar extractions between Damon Q and Invisalign®: A retrospective study

Changing clear aligners every 10 days or 14 days ? A randomised controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About