American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2021
Comparison of clinical outcomes between Invisalign and conventional fixed appliance therapies in adult patients with severe deep overbite treated with nonextraction.
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.
Fujiyama Koji, Kera Yohei, Yujin Shimizu, Tanikawa Chihiro, Yamashiro Takashi, Guo Xiaohan, Ni Andy, Deguchi Toru
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The use of aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment has increased substantially in the past decade. However, no study has compared treatment outcomes between the conventional fixed appliance and Invisalign therapies in patients with a severe deep overbite.
METHODS: This study included 50 consecutive adult patients who underwent treatment with either Invisalign (n = 25; mean age, 23.3 ± 8.5 years) or a conventional fixed appliance (n = 25; mean age, 23.1 ± 6.5 years) to correct overbite >5 mm and >60% deep overbite. Cephalometric analysis and peer assessment rating was used to compare the clinical outcome between groups.
RESULTS: Cephalometric analysis showed significant differences in N-Me (P = 0.0005) and Mp-L6 (P = 0.0001) between Invisalign and fixed appliance treatment groups. No significant differences were observed in the peer assessment rating analysis or total treatment duration between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Invisalign and conventional fixed appliances were effective in treating patients with a severe deep overbite. Invisalign therapy may be preferable over conventional fixed appliance therapy in patients with high angle and deep overbite. However, because this study had a retrospective design, the results should be viewed with caution.
METHODS: This study included 50 consecutive adult patients who underwent treatment with either Invisalign (n = 25; mean age, 23.3 ± 8.5 years) or a conventional fixed appliance (n = 25; mean age, 23.1 ± 6.5 years) to correct overbite >5 mm and >60% deep overbite. Cephalometric analysis and peer assessment rating was used to compare the clinical outcome between groups.
RESULTS: Cephalometric analysis showed significant differences in N-Me (P = 0.0005) and Mp-L6 (P = 0.0001) between Invisalign and fixed appliance treatment groups. No significant differences were observed in the peer assessment rating analysis or total treatment duration between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Invisalign and conventional fixed appliances were effective in treating patients with a severe deep overbite. Invisalign therapy may be preferable over conventional fixed appliance therapy in patients with high angle and deep overbite. However, because this study had a retrospective design, the results should be viewed with caution.