The Angle orthodontist · 2024
Invisalign Lite: a cross-sectional investigation of orthodontist treatment-planning practices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harti Gusti Fungani, Maulida Syifa Nur, Susandi Evan, Fadjari Trinugroho Heri, Sumardi Uun, Alisjahbana Bachti, Wijaya Indra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To survey treatment-planning practices of orthodontists related to the Invisalign Lite clear aligner appliance (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria and treated with Invisalign Lite were selected from a database containing more than 17,000 patients. Relevant data regarding treatment-planning practices were obtained from Align Technology's treatment-planning facility, ClinCheck, and evaluated.
RESULTS: Most (n = 135; 79.9%) patients were female and had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 30.5 (23.8, 43.1) years. The median (IQR) number of aligners for the sample was 23.0 (14, 28) for the maxilla and 24 (14, 28) for the mandible. Most (n = 122; 72.2%) patients required at least one additional series of aligners. More locations for interproximal reduction (IPR) were prescribed in the mandible (mean 1.91 [1.78]) than in the maxilla (1.03 [1.78]; P < .024) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. More teeth were prescribed composite resin (CR) attachments in the maxilla (P < .0001) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. Issues regarding tooth position protocols (n = 50; 53.3%) and requirement for additional IPR (n = 68; 45.3%) were reasons for treatment plan changes before acceptance of the initial treatment plan by orthodontists.
CONCLUSIONS: More than 7 of 10 patients required at least one additional series of aligners after the initial series of Invisalign Lite aligners was completed. Prescription of IPR was more common in the mandible, and prescription of CR attachments was more common in the maxilla.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria and treated with Invisalign Lite were selected from a database containing more than 17,000 patients. Relevant data regarding treatment-planning practices were obtained from Align Technology's treatment-planning facility, ClinCheck, and evaluated.
RESULTS: Most (n = 135; 79.9%) patients were female and had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 30.5 (23.8, 43.1) years. The median (IQR) number of aligners for the sample was 23.0 (14, 28) for the maxilla and 24 (14, 28) for the mandible. Most (n = 122; 72.2%) patients required at least one additional series of aligners. More locations for interproximal reduction (IPR) were prescribed in the mandible (mean 1.91 [1.78]) than in the maxilla (1.03 [1.78]; P < .024) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. More teeth were prescribed composite resin (CR) attachments in the maxilla (P < .0001) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. Issues regarding tooth position protocols (n = 50; 53.3%) and requirement for additional IPR (n = 68; 45.3%) were reasons for treatment plan changes before acceptance of the initial treatment plan by orthodontists.
CONCLUSIONS: More than 7 of 10 patients required at least one additional series of aligners after the initial series of Invisalign Lite aligners was completed. Prescription of IPR was more common in the mandible, and prescription of CR attachments was more common in the maxilla.