Enamel Interproximal Reduction During Treatment with Clear Aligners: Digital Planning Versus OrthoCAD Analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2021 Apr 20

PMID 33874922

Citations 13

Authors

Giuseppina Lagana

Arianna Malara

Roberta Lione

Carlotta Danesi

Simonetta Meuli

Paola Cozza

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the amount of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) provided on ClinCheck software with the amount of IPR carried out by the orthodontist during treatment with clear aligners.

Methods: 30 subjects (14 males, 16 females; mean age of 24.53 ± 13.41 years) randomly recruited from the Invisalign account of the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Rome "Tor Vergata" from November 2018 to October 2019, were collected according to the following inclusion criteria: mild to moderate dento-alveolar discrepancy (1.5-6.5 mm); Class I canine and molar relationship; full permanent dentition (excluding third molars); both arches treated only using Comprehensive Package by Invisalign system; treatment plan including IPR. Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital models (.stl files), created from an iTero scan, were collected from all selected patients. The OrthoCAD digital software was used to measure tooth mesiodistal width in upper and lower arches before (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1) before any refinement. The widest mesio-distal diameter was measured for each tooth excluding molars by "Diagnostic" OrthoCAD tool. The total amount of IPR performed during treatment was obtained comparing the sum of mesio-distal widths of all measured teeth at T0 and T1. Significant T1-T0 differences were tested with dependent sample t-test (P < 0.05).

Results: In the upper arch, IPR was digitally planned on average for 0.62 mm while in the lower arch was on average for 1.92 mm. As for the amount of enamel actually removed after IPR performing, it was on average 0.62 mm in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the mean of IPR carried out was 1.93 mm. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR is described: this difference was on average 0.00 mm in the upper arch and 0.01 in the lower arch.

Conclusions: The amount of enamel removed in vivo corresponded with the amount of IPR planned by the Orthodontist using ClinCheck software.

Citing Articles

Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT-Based Study.

Gonzalez-Garcia E, Balut-Chahin N, Rojo-Arce C, Corona M, Cruz-Hervert L, Retrouvey J Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025; 11(1):e70083.

PMID: 39962772 PMC: 11832591. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.70083.

Vertical Dimension Control in Two Different Treatment Protocols: Invisalign First and Bite Block-A Retrospective Study.

Lagana G, Malara A, Palmacci D, Bollero P, Cozza P Children (Basel). 2024; 11(10).

PMID: 39457217 PMC: 11506737. DOI: 10.3390/children11101252.

A Comparative Analysis of Enamel Surface Roughness Following Various Interproximal Reduction Techniques: An Examination Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy.

Serbanoiu D, Vartolomei A, Ghiga D, Moldovan M, Sarosi C, Petean I Biomedicines. 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39200094 PMC: 11351462. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12081629.

Comparative Evaluation of Dental Enamel Microhardness Following Various Methods of Interproximal Reduction: A Vickers Hardness Tester Investigation.

Serbanoiu D, Vartolomei A, Ghiga D, Pop S, Panainte I, Moldovan M Biomedicines. 2024; 12(5).

PMID: 38791094 PMC: 11118204. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12051132.

New Approaches and Technologies in Orthodontics.

Perillo L, dApuzzo F, Grassia V J Clin Med. 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 38730999 PMC: 11084780. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092470.

References

Zhong M, Jost-Brinkmann P, Zellmann M, Zellmann S, Radlanski R . Clinical evaluation of a new technique for interdental enamel reduction. J Orofac Orthop. 2000; 61(6):432-9. DOI: 10.1007/pl00001911. View

De Felice M, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V . Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020; 21(1):28. PMC: 7385051. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00329-1. View

Lione R, Gazzani F, Pavoni C, Guarino S, Tagliaferri V, Cozza P . In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Angle Orthod. 2016; 87(3):455-459. PMC: 8382000. DOI: 10.2319/071516-552.1. View

Duncan L, Piedade L, Lekic M, Cunha R, Wiltshire W . Changes in mandibular incisor position and arch form resulting from Invisalign correction of the crowded dentition treated nonextraction. Angle Orthod. 2015; 86(4):577-83. PMC: 8601489. DOI: 10.2319/042415-280.1. View

Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K . Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija. 2014; 16(1):19-24. View

Johner A, Pandis N, Dudic A, Kiliaridis S . Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143(4 Suppl):S168-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.001. View

Melsen B, Allais D . Factors of importance for the development of dehiscences during labial movement of mandibular incisors: a retrospective study of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(5):552-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.12.026. View

Danesh G, Hellak A, Lippold C, Ziebura T, Schafer E . Enamel surfaces following interproximal reduction with different methods. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77(6):1004-10. DOI: 10.2319/041806-165.1. View

PIACENTINI C, SFONDRINI G . A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70163-4. View

10.

Livas C, Jongsma A, Ren Y . Enamel reduction techniques in orthodontics: a literature review. Open Dent J. 2013; 7:146-51. PMC: 3831306. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601307010146. View

11.

Cohen J . A power primer. Psychol Bull. 2009; 112(1):155-9. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155. View

12.

Allais D, Melsen B . Does labial movement of lower incisors influence the level of the gingival margin? A case-control study of adult orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25(4):343-52. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/25.4.343. View

13.

Hein C, Jost-Brinkmann P, Schillai G . [The enamel surface quality after interproximal stripping--a scanning electron microscopic assessment of different polishing procedures]. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1990; 51(6):327-35. DOI: 10.1007/BF02167541. View

14.

Kravitz N, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B . How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(1):27-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.018. View

15.

Lanteri V, Farronato G, Lanteri C, Caravita R, Cossellu G . The efficacy of orthodontic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Quintessence Int. 2018; 49(7):581-587. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a40511. View

16.

Gazzani F, Lione R, Pavoni C, Mampieri G, Cozza P . Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1):247. PMC: 6854626. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0934-y. View

17.

Kaaouara Y, Mohind H, Azaroual M, Zaoui F, Bahije L, Benyahia H . In vivo enamel stripping: A macroscopic and microscopic analytical study. Int Orthod. 2019; 17(2):235-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.03.005. View

18.

Charalampakis O, Iliadi A, Ueno H, Oliver D, Kim K . Accuracy of clear aligners: A retrospective study of patients who needed refinement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 154(1):47-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.028. View

19.

Pindoria J, Fleming P, Sharma P . Inter-proximal enamel reduction in contemporary orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2016; 221(12):757-763. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.945. View

20.

Livas C, Baumann T, Flury S, Pandis N . Quantitative evaluation of the progressive wear of powered interproximal reduction systems after repeated use : An in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2019; 81(1):22-29. PMC: 6960219. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-019-00200-x. View