Self-ligating Versus Invisalign: Analysis of Dento-alveolar Effects

Overview

Journal Ann Stomatol (Roma)

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2012 Jan 13

PMID 22238719

Citations 22

Authors

Chiara Pavoni

Roberta Lione

Giuseppina Lagana

Paola Cozza

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in the transverse dimension and the perimeter of the maxillary arch produced by low friction self-ligating brackets TIME 3 compared to the Invisalign technique.

Materials And Methods: Both the self-ligating sample and the Invisalign group were composed of 20 subjects, evaluated at the beginning (T0) and at the completion of therapy (T1). All subjects presented a Class I malocclusion with mild crowding in a permanent dentition, without craniofacial anomalies, missing teeth or a history of orthodontic treatment. Dento-alveolar measurements were made on the maxillary dental casts at T0 and T1. Significant differences between the treated groups were assessed with Independent Samples t test (p<0.05).

Results: Statistically significant differences between self-ligating sample and Invisalign group were recorded for CWC, FPWF, FPWL, SPWF, SPWL, and AP measurements. No significant changes were found for CWL, MWF, MWL, and AD values. There was not a statistically significant difference between the treatment durations of the groups: 1.8 years for both patients. These data suggest that Invisalign treatment cannot be somewhat faster than fixed appliances. Moreover the final occlusion might not be as ideal.

Conclusions: The low fiction self-ligating system produced statistically significant different outcomes in the transverse dento-alveolar width and the perimeter of the maxillary arch during treatment when compared to Invisalign tecnique.

Citing Articles

A Systematic Review of Interventions-Does Invisalign Move Teeth as Effectively as Orthodontic Fixed Appliances?.

Alam M, Awawdeh M, Alhazmi N, Alamoud K, Iyer K, Abutayyem H Scientifica (Cairo). 2024; 2024:4268902.

PMID: 39618690 PMC: 11606659. DOI: 10.1155/sci5/4268902.

Comparison of the predicted and achieved labiolingual inclinations of the maxillary central incisors in adult Class II division 2 malocclusions treated with clear aligners.

Al-Samman M, Sadek M, Hamdan A Korean J Orthod. 2024; 54(6):403-410.

PMID: 39582335 PMC: 11602257. DOI: 10.4041/kjod24.093.

Accuracy of arch expansion with two thermoplastic materials in Invisalign® patients: EX30® and SmartTrack®.

Medeiros R, Santos R, Mendes-Miguel J, Rothier E, Mendes F, Dominguez G Dental Press J Orthod. 2024; 29(2):e2423212.

PMID: 38865514 PMC: 11163956. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.29.2.e2423212.oar.

An evaluation of the Invisalign® Aligner Technique and consideration of the force system: a systematic review.

Caruso S, De Felice M, Valenti C, Pagano S, Caruso S, Gatto R Syst Rev. 2024; 13(1):43.

PMID: 38281057 PMC: 10821231. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02437-5.

Treatment effects after maxillary expansion using invisalign first system vs. acrylic splint expander in mixed dentition: a prospective cohort study.

Lu L, Zhang L, Li C, Yi F, Lei L, Lu Y BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):598.

PMID: 37635237 PMC: 10463527. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03312-4.

References

Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M, Lupoli M . Maxillary arch changes during leveling and aligning with fixed appliances and low-friction ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(1):88-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.017. View

Harradine N . Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001; 4(4):220-7. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40406.x. View

Miller K, McGorray S, Womack R, Quintero J, Perelmuter M, Gibson J . A comparison of treatment impacts between Invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(3):302.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.031. View

Bollen A, Huang G, King G, Hujoel P, Ma T . Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 1: Ability to complete treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124(5):496-501. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00576-6. View

Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara Jr J . An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72(4):316-23. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0316:AIVOTC>2.0.CO;2. View

Fleming P, DiBiase A, Sarri G, Lee R . Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(5):597-602. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.014. View

Harradine N . Self-ligating brackets: where are we now?. J Orthod. 2003; 30(3):262-73. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/30.3.262. View

Nedwed V, Miethke R . Motivation, acceptance and problems of invisalign patients. J Orofac Orthop. 2005; 66(2):162-73. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-005-0429-0. View

Thorstenson G, Kusy R . Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(3):295-305. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.126156. View

10.

Lagravere M, Flores-Mir C . The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136(12):1724-9. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0117. View

11.

Damon D . The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod. 1999; 32(11):670-80. View

12.

Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A . Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(3):292-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002. View

13.

Boyd R . Esthetic orthodontic treatment using the invisalign appliance for moderate to complex malocclusions. J Dent Educ. 2008; 72(8):948-67. View

14.

BeGole E, Fox D, Sadowsky C . Analysis of change in arch form with premolar expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113(3):307-15. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70302-6. View