Predicted and actual end-of-treatment occlusion produced with aligner therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare three-dimensional (3D) ClinCheck™ models with the subjects' actual 3D posttreatment models using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (OGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, within-subject study included 27 consecutive cases treated with aligner therapy. The posttreatment plaster models taken immediately after treatment were scanned and converted to stereolithography (STL) files; the ClinCheck models were also converted to STL format. MeshLab software was used to measure the seven components of the OGS, including alignment, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclinations, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, overjet and interproximal contacts. An overall OGS deduction score was also calculated. RESULTS: Compared with the posttreatment models, the ClinCheck models showed significantly (P  =  .016) fewer overall OGS point deductions (24 vs 15). These overall differences were due to significantly (P < .05) more deductions among the posttreatment models than the ClinCheck models for alignment (4.0 vs 1.0 deductions), buccolingual inclinations (4.0 vs 3.0 deductions), occlusal contacts (3.0 vs 2.0 deductions), and occlusal relations (4.0 vs 2.0 deductions). CONCLUSION: The ClinCheck models do not accurately reflect the patients' final occlusion, as measured by the OGS, at the end of active treatment.

Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the time efficiency of aligner therapy (ALT) and conventional edgewise braces (CEB) based on large samples of patients treated by the same highly experienced orthodontist, with the same treatment goals for both groups of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective portion of the study evaluated 150 CEB patients who were matched, based on mandibular crowding and number of rotated teeth, to 150 ALT patients. All records were obtained at one orthodontist's office. All of the patients had mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions (≤5 mm incisor crowding) and were treated nonextraction. Age, gender, total treatment time, total number of appointments, types of appointments, materials used, mandibular crowding, and number of rotated teeth were recorded from the patients' records. The prospective portion of the study timed the various types of appointments for both treatments with a stopwatch. RESULTS: Compared to ALT, CEB required significantly (P<.01) more visits (approximately 4.0), a longer treatment duration (5.5 months), more emergency visits (1.0), greater emergency chair time (7.0 minutes), and greater total chair time (93.4 minutes). However, ALT showed significantly (P<.01) greater total material costs and required significantly more total doctor time than CEB (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Whether the greater time efficiency of ALT offsets the greater material costs and doctor time required depends on the experience of the orthodontist and the number of ALT case starts.

Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces.

Abstract Objective: To compare the time efficiency of aligner therapy (ALT) and conventional edgewise braces (CEB) based on large samples of patients treated by the same highly experienced orthodontist, with the same treatment goals for both groups of patients. Materials and Methods: The retrospective portion of the study evaluated 150 CEB patients who were matched, based on mandibular crowding and number of rotated teeth, to 150 ALT patients. All records were obtained at one orthodontist's office. All of the patients had mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions (≤5 mm incisor crowding) and were treated nonextraction. Age, gender, total treatment time, total number of appointments, types of appointments, materials used, mandibular crowding, and number of rotated teeth were recorded from the patients' records. The prospective portion of the study timed the various types of appointments for both treatments with a stopwatch. Results: Compared to ALT, CEB required significantly (P < .01) more visits (approximately 4.0), a longer treatment duration (5.5 months), more emergency visits (1.0), greater emergency chair time (7.0 minutes), and greater total chair time (93.4 minutes). However, ALT showed significantly (P < .01) greater total material costs and required significantly more total doctor time than CEB (P < .01). Conclusions: Whether the greater time efficiency of ALT offsets the greater material costs and doctor time required depends on the experience of the orthodontist and the number of ALT case starts.