Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024
Comparative Analysis of Braces and Aligners: Long-Term Orthodontic Outcomes.
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.
Aref Sayyad, Ravuri Preetham, Kubavat Ajay K, Sowmya Cherukupalli, Nallamilli Leela Venkata Soujanya, Bhanawat Nilesh, Tiwari Rahul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term results of orthodontic treatment with traditional braces and Invisalign, with a particular emphasis on treatment length, patient satisfaction, correction of malocclusion, and long-term stability.
METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center had their data analysed. Patients with mild to severe malocclusions treated with conventional braces or Invisalign between the ages of 12 and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Assessments were done on results, length of treatment, degree of malocclusion, and long-term stability. With significance set at P < 0.05, statistical analyses comprised t-tests for treatment duration and Chi-square testing for malocclusion correction.
FINDINGS: The mean treatment time for Invisalign was much shorter (18 months) than for conventional braces (24 months) (P < 0.001). With 88-90% success rates, both techniques demonstrated remarkable success rates in malocclusion treatment. Even though Invisalign was associated with a somewhat greater percentage of relapse instances, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Invisalign showed a much shorter treatment period than conventional braces, yet both showed excellent malocclusion correction. The choice of modality should be based on patient satisfaction, treatment objectives, and case complexity, taking into account the trade-offs between treatment length and potential variations in long-term stability.
METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center had their data analysed. Patients with mild to severe malocclusions treated with conventional braces or Invisalign between the ages of 12 and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Assessments were done on results, length of treatment, degree of malocclusion, and long-term stability. With significance set at P < 0.05, statistical analyses comprised t-tests for treatment duration and Chi-square testing for malocclusion correction.
FINDINGS: The mean treatment time for Invisalign was much shorter (18 months) than for conventional braces (24 months) (P < 0.001). With 88-90% success rates, both techniques demonstrated remarkable success rates in malocclusion treatment. Even though Invisalign was associated with a somewhat greater percentage of relapse instances, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Invisalign showed a much shorter treatment period than conventional braces, yet both showed excellent malocclusion correction. The choice of modality should be based on patient satisfaction, treatment objectives, and case complexity, taking into account the trade-offs between treatment length and potential variations in long-term stability.