4.5 Article

Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner technique - regarding incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization

期刊

BMC ORAL HEALTH
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-68

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  2. Albert Ludwigs University Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of orthodontic treatment using the Invisalign (R) system. Particularly, we analyzed the influence of auxiliaries (Attachment/Power Ridge) as well as the staging (movement per aligner) on treatment efficacy. Methods: We reviewed the tooth movements of 30 consecutive patients who required orthodontic treatment with Invisalign (R). In all patients, one of the following tooth movements was performed: (1) Incisor Torque > 10 degrees, (2) Premolar derotation > 10 degrees (3) Molar distalization > 1.5 mm. The groups (1)-(3) were subdivided: in the first subgroup (a) the movements were supported with the use of an attachment, while in the subgroup (b) no auxiliaries were used (except incisor torque, in which Power Ridges were used). All tooth movements were performed in a split-mouth design. To analyze the clinical efficacy, pre-treatment and final plaster cast models were laser-scanned and the achieved tooth movement was determined by way of a surface/surface matching algorithm. The results were compared with the amount of tooth movement predicted by ClinCheck (R). Results: The overall mean efficacy was 59% (SD = 0.2). The mean accuracy for upper incisor torque was 42% (SD = 0.2). Premolar derotation showed the lowest accuracy with approximately 40% (SD = 0.3). Distalization of an upper molar was the most effective movement, with efficacy approximately 87% (SD = 0.2). Conclusion: Incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization can be performed using Invisalign (R) aligners. The staging (movement/aligner) and the total amount of planned movement have an significant impact on treatment efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据