Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets.
Liao, Tzu-Han; Fang, Jason Chen-Chieh; Wang, I-Kuan; Huang, Chiung-Shing; Chen, Hui-Ling; Yen, Tzung-Hai.
Afiliação
  • Liao TH; Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
  • Fang JC; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan.
  • Wang IK; Department of Nephrology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 404, Taiwan.
  • Huang CS; College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 406, Taiwan.
  • Chen HL; Craniofacial Research Center, Department Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei 105, Taiwan.
  • Yen TH; Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35682154
ABSTRACT
Background. Clear aligners have become a treatment alternative to metal brackets in recent years due to the advantages of aesthetics, comfort, and oral health improvement. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the clinical characteristics and dental indices of orthodontic patients using aligners or brackets. Methods. A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021. Patients were stratified by types of treatment (Invisalign® clear aligner (n = 60) or metal bracket (n = 110).

Results:

Patients were aged 26.1 ± 7.2 years, and most were female (75.0%). The Invisalign® group was older than the bracket group (p = 0.003). The skeletal relationships were mainly Class I (49.4%), followed by Class II (30.0%) and Class III (20.6%). The molar relationships were primarily Class I (38.8%), followed by Class II (37.1%) and Class III (24.1%). The decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index was 9.9 ± 6.0, including 2.1 ± 2.9 for decayed teeth, 0.5 ± 1.1 for missing teeth, and 7.3 ± 4.3 for filled teeth. There were no significant differences in the DMFT index or skeletal and molar relationships between the groups (p > 0.05). The index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) was 56.8 ± 13.5, and the score was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (p = 0.002). Among the variables included in the ICON assessment, only the aesthetic variable was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (p < 0.001). The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle was 27.9 ± 5.1 degrees. Finally, the E-line of the lower lip was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (1.5 ± 2.4 versus 2.8 ± 3.1, p = 0.005). Conclusions. Older patients showed a greater intention to choose Invisalign® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. The demand for Invisalign® aligner treatment for aesthetic reasons was substantial. A soft tissue profile with more protrusive lower lips and a greater need for orthodontic treatment was found in the bracket group.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Aparelhos Ortodônticos Removíveis Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Int J Environ Res Public Health Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Aparelhos Ortodônticos Removíveis Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Int J Environ Res Public Health Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Taiwan