13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cephalometric evaluation of changes in vertical dimension and molar position in adult non-extraction treatment with clear aligners and traditional fixed appliances

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Introduction:

          Orthodontists have been using clear aligners to treat malocclusions, and one potential effect of treatment with orthodontic aligners is the intrusion and/or resists extrusion of the posterior teeth. This “bite-block effect” is primarily anecdotal due to the frequent occurrence of posterior open bites in patients after clear aligner therapy.

          Objective:

          The purpose of this study was to compare changes promoted by clear aligners and traditional fixed appliances in cephalometric measurements of the vertical dimension and molar position in adult patients with Class I malocclusion treated with non-extraction.

          Methods:

          Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of adult patients treated with either clear aligners (n=44) or traditional fixed appliances (n=22) were selected for retrospective analysis. Eight interval measurements and one nominal measurement were evaluated: anterior overbite (OB), mandibular plane angle related to cranial base (SN_MP) and related to Frankfort (FMA), lower molar height (L6H) and upper molar height (U6H), palatal plane to mandibular plane angle (PP_MP), lower facial height (LFH), total facial height (TFH), and posterior open bite (Posterior_OB). A single evaluator traced all cephalographs, and changes in select measures of the vertical dimension were compared within and between groups.

          Results:

          OB decreased (1.15 mm) and L6H increased (0.63 mm) in the traditional fixed appliance group. Mandibular plane angles (related to cranial base and to Frankfort) increased (0.43° and 0.53°, respectively) in the clear aligner group, but just FMA showed significant difference between groups (difference of 0.53°). LFH and TFH increased (ranging from 0.52 mm to 0.80 mm) in both groups, with no differences between treatment modality. Presence of visible posterior open bite significantly increased over the course of treatment. OB, FMA and L6H exhibited an interaction between treatment stage (pre- and post-treatment) and modality (clear aligner therapy and traditional fixed appliances), but no interaction among these three variables was found.

          Conclusions:

          The evidence does not support the theory that clear aligner therapy produces better vertical dimension control than traditional fixed appliances. Traditional fixed appliance therapy slightly extruded the lower molar, and clear aligner therapy produced a slightly mandibular backward rotation.

          RESUMO

          Introdução:

          Ortodontistas têm usado os alinhadores transparentes para tratar más oclusões, e um potencial efeito desse tratamento é a intrusão e/ou resistência à extrusão dos dentes posteriores. Esse efeito de “bloco de mordida” é principalmente empírico, devido à ocorrência frequente de mordidas abertas posteriores em pacientes após a terapia com alinhadores transparentes.

          Objetivo:

          O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar as mudanças promovidas pelos alinhadores transparentes e aparelho fixo convencional nas medidas cefalométricas de dimensão vertical e posição do molar em pacientes adultos com má oclusão de Classe I tratados sem exodontias.

          Métodos:

          Radiografias cefalométricas laterais pré- e pós-tratamento de pacientes adultos tratados com alinhadores transparentes (n=44) ou com aparelho fixo tradicional (n=22) foram selecionadas para uma análise retrospectiva. Oito medidas de intervalo e uma medida nominal foram avaliadas: trespasse vertical anterior (OB), ângulo do plano mandibular em relação à base do crânio (SN_MP) e em relação ao Plano de Frankfurt (FMA), altura do molar inferior (L6H) e altura do molar superior (U6H), ângulo do plano palatal ao plano mandibular (PP_MP), altura facial inferior (LFH), altura facial total (TFH) e mordida aberta posterior (Posterior_OB). Um único avaliador fez todos os traçados cefalométricos, e as mudanças nas medidas da dimensão vertical foram comparadas intra e intergrupos.

          Resultados:

          OB reduziu (1,15 mm) e L6H aumentou (0,63 mm) no grupo de aparelho fixo tradicional. Os ângulos do plano mandibular (em relação à base do crânio e ao plano de Frankfurt) aumentaram (0,43° e 0,53°, respectivamente). No grupo dos alinhadores invisíveis, apenas o FMA apresentou diferença significativa entre os grupos (diferença de 0,53º). LFH e TFH aumentaram (variando de 0,52 mm a 0,80 mm) em ambos os grupos, sem diferenças entre as modalidades de tratamento. A presença de uma mordida aberta posterior visível aumentou significativamente durante o curso do tratamento. OB, FMA e L6H exibiram interação entre o estágio do tratamento (pré- e pós-tratamento) e a modalidade (terapia com alinhadores invisíveis ou aparelho fixo tradicional), porém não foi encontrada interação entre essas três variáveis.

          Conclusões:

          A evidência não suporta a teoria de que a terapia com alinhadores invisíveis produz melhor controle da dimensão vertical do que o aparelho fixo. O tratamento com aparelhagem fixa extruiu ligeiramente o molar inferior, e o tratamento com alinhadores invisíveis produziu uma ligeira rotação posterior da mandíbula.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

          This treatment-outcome assessment objectively compares Invisalign (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) treatment with braces. This study, a retrospective cohort analysis, was conducted in New York, NY, in 2004. Records from 2 groups of 48 patients (Invisalign and braces groups) were evaluated by using methods from the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III examination. The discrepancy index was used to analyze pretreatment records to control for initial severity of malocclusion. The objective grading system (OGS) was used to systematically grade posttreatment records. Statistical analyses evaluated treatment outcome, duration, and strengths and weaknesses of Invisalign compared with braces. The Invisalign group lost 13 OGS points more than the braces group on average, and the OGS passing rate for Invisalign was 27% lower than that for braces. Invisalign scores were consistently lower than braces scores for buccolingual inclination, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and overjet. Invisalign's OGS scores were negatively correlated to initial overjet, occlusion, and buccal posterior crossibite. Invisalign patients finished 4 months sooner than those with fixed appliances on average. P < .05 was used to determine statistically significant differences. According to the OGS, Invisalign did not treat malocclusions as well as braces in this sample. Invisalign was especially deficient in its ability to correct large anteroposterior discrepancies and occlusal contacts. The strengths of Invisalign were its ability to close spaces and correct anterior rotations and marginal ridge heights. This study might help clinicians to determine which patients are best suited for Invisalign treatment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

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

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: a systematic review.

              The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the treatment effects of the Invisalign orthodontic system (Align Technology), Santa Clara, Calif.). The authors reviewed clinical trials that assessed Invisalign's treatment effects in nongrowing patients. They did not consider trials involving surgical or other simultaneous fixed or removable orthodontic treatment interventions. The authors searched electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, EMBASE Excerpta Medica, Thomsen's ISI Web of Science and LILACS) with the help of a senior health sciences librarian. They used "Invisalign" as the sole search term, and 22 documents appeared in the combined search. Thereafter, they used "clinical trials," "humans" and "Invisalign treatment effects" as abstract selection criteria. Only two published articles met these inclusion criteria, though after reading the actual articles, the authors determined that they did not adequately evaluate Invisalign treatment effects. Both articles identified methodological issues. The inadequately designed studies the authors found represented only a lower level of evidence (level II). Therefore, the authors found that no strong conclusions could be made regarding the treatment effects of Invisalign appliances. Future prospective randomized clinical trials are required to support, with sound scientific evidence, the claims about Invisalign's treatment effects. Clinicians will have to rely on their Invisalign clinical experience, the opinions of experts and the limited published evidence when using Invisalign appliances.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Dental Press J Orthod
                Dental Press J Orthod
                dpjo
                Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
                Dental Press International
                2176-9451
                2177-6709
                10 September 2021
                2021
                : 26
                : 4
                : e2119360
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics (Houston/TX, USA).
                Author notes

                AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS: Hailee Rask (HR)

                Jeryl English (JE)

                Clark Colville (CC)

                Fred Kurtis Kasper (FKK)

                Ronald Gallerano (RG)

                Helder Baldi Jacob (HBJ)

                Conception or design of the study:

                HR, JE, CC, FKK, RG, HBJ.

                Data acquisition, analysis or interpretation:

                HR, JE, CC, FKK, RG, HBJ.

                Writing the article:

                HR, JE, FKK, HBJ.

                Critical revision of the article:

                HR, JE, CC, FKK, RG, HBJ.

                Final approval of the article:

                HR, JE, CC, FKK, RG, HBJ.

                Fundraising:

                JE, CC.

                Overall responsibility:

                HBJ.

                The authors report no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8521-036X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3084-0874
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2981-5081
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3805-4373
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5332-2458
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2642-0540
                Article
                00307
                10.1590/2177-6709.26.4.e2119360.oar
                8439186
                34524380
                54301b96-d0c5-4119-99d1-6590bc6e212f

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

                History
                : 16 December 2019
                : 17 June 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 23
                Categories
                Original Article

                clear aligner,traditional fixed appliance,vertical dimension,molar height

                Comments

                Comment on this article