» Articles » PMID: 37268700

A Retrospective Study of the Accuracy of Invisalign Progress Assessment with Clear Aligners

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2023 Jun 2
PMID 37268700
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The objective of this study was to detective the accuracy of model superimposition and automatic analysis for upper and lower dentition width in Invisalign Progress Assessment during the process of clear aligners. 19 cases were included in this study. Pre-treatment dental cast (T0) and post-treatment dental cast after staged treatment (T1) were available for three-dimensional model superimposition. Subsequently, movements of maxillary teeth in the horizontal plane (cross-section) after staged treatment and width of upper and lower dentition were measured by three-dimensional model superimposition in the real world and Invisalign Progress Assessment separately. Consequently, the data collected from these two methods were compared. In Invisalign Progress Assessment, movements of maxillary teeth in the horizontal plane after staged treatment was 2.31 (1.59,3.22) [median (upper quartile, lower quartile)] millimeter (mm), while in three-dimensional model superimposition, the result was 1.79 (1.21,3.03) mm. The difference between the two groups is significant (P < 0.05). Intercanine width upper, intermolar width upper, intercanine width lower, and intermolar width lower were 36.55 ± 2.76 mm, 56.98 ± 2.62 mm, 28.16 ± 1.85 mm, 53.21 ± 2.72 mm separately in Invisalign Progress Assessment and were 36.48 ± 2.78 mm, 56.89 ± 2.58 mm, 28.05 ± 1.85 mm, 53.16 ± 2.64 mm separately in three-dimensional model analysis, which was no significant difference among these groups (P > 0.05). The data from Invisalign Progress Assessment was not in parallel with what was achieved from model superimposition with palate as a reference completely. The accuracy of model superimposition in Invisalign Progress Assessment needs further investigation, whereas the accuracy of model analysis in Invisalign Progress Assessment was accurate. Thereby, results from Invisalign Progress Assessment should be interpreted with caution by the orthodontist in the clinic.

Citing Articles

Impact of Invisalign G-series Updates on Improving Predicted Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.

Fatani E, Alkhamsi H, Arishi F, Altaweel S, Asiri M, Albuni W Cureus. 2024; 15(12):e50615.

PMID: 38226098 PMC: 10788698. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50615.

References
1.
Vasilakos G, Schilling R, Halazonetis D, Gkantidis N . Assessment of different techniques for 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental casts on palatal structures. Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):5838. PMC: 5517608. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-06013-5. View

2.
Hoggan B, Sadowsky C . The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119(5):482-8. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.113001. View

3.
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

4.
Cicciu M, Fiorillo L, DAmico C, Gambino D, Amantia E, Laino L . 3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(8). PMC: 7215909. DOI: 10.3390/ma13081982. View

5.
Keul C, Guth J . Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 24(2):735-745. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2. View