American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2025
Assessment of linear and angular positions of central incisors in the maxilla and mandible related to planned overbite changes with clear aligner therapy.
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.
Meade Maurice J, Weir Tony, Blundell Haylea L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to determine how the achieved labiolingual movements of central incisors compared with those planned in patients treated with the Invisalign (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif) appliance and requiring differing amounts of overbite correction.
METHODS: Adults treated with Invisalign aligners and satisfying selection criteria were chosen from a large database. Pretreatment, planned, and achieved arch depth/linear changes and angular changes of the maxillary and mandibular central incisors were calculated from relevant stereolithography files within Align Technology's treatment planning Web-based software application via metrology software and illustrated via Bland-Altman plots. Pretreatment, planned, and achieved incisor apices positions were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were evaluated. Achieved arch depth/linear changes did not differ significantly (P ≥0.17) from those planned, whereas all achieved angular changes differed significantly (P ≤0.01) from those planned. The mean accuracy of planned arch depth/linear changes ranged 99.2%-100.5%, and the mean accuracy of planned angular changes ranged 57.0%-90.3%. Bland-Altman plots showed that differences between planned and achieved angular changes increased as planned overbite correction increased. Changes in central incisor apical positions were related to changes in root angulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Although achieved arch depth/linear changes were close to those planned with the Invisalign appliance, angular changes differed significantly from those planned pretreatment. Central incisor root apices moved more labially than planned as planned changes to overbite increased, with a corresponding potential increased risk of alveolar bony dehiscence and fenestration.
METHODS: Adults treated with Invisalign aligners and satisfying selection criteria were chosen from a large database. Pretreatment, planned, and achieved arch depth/linear changes and angular changes of the maxillary and mandibular central incisors were calculated from relevant stereolithography files within Align Technology's treatment planning Web-based software application via metrology software and illustrated via Bland-Altman plots. Pretreatment, planned, and achieved incisor apices positions were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were evaluated. Achieved arch depth/linear changes did not differ significantly (P ≥0.17) from those planned, whereas all achieved angular changes differed significantly (P ≤0.01) from those planned. The mean accuracy of planned arch depth/linear changes ranged 99.2%-100.5%, and the mean accuracy of planned angular changes ranged 57.0%-90.3%. Bland-Altman plots showed that differences between planned and achieved angular changes increased as planned overbite correction increased. Changes in central incisor apical positions were related to changes in root angulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Although achieved arch depth/linear changes were close to those planned with the Invisalign appliance, angular changes differed significantly from those planned pretreatment. Central incisor root apices moved more labially than planned as planned changes to overbite increased, with a corresponding potential increased risk of alveolar bony dehiscence and fenestration.