Invisalign Lite: a cross-sectional investigation of orthodontist treatment-planning practices.

OBJECTIVES: To survey treatment-planning practices of orthodontists related to the Invisalign Lite clear aligner appliance (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria and treated with Invisalign Lite were selected from a database containing more than 17,000 patients. Relevant data regarding treatment-planning practices were obtained from Align Technology's treatment-planning facility, ClinCheck, and evaluated. RESULTS: Most (n = 135; 79.9%) patients were female and had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 30.5 (23.8, 43.1) years. The median (IQR) number of aligners for the sample was 23.0 (14, 28) for the maxilla and 24 (14, 28) for the mandible. Most (n = 122; 72.2%) patients required at least one additional series of aligners. More locations for interproximal reduction (IPR) were prescribed in the mandible (mean 1.91 [1.78]) than in the maxilla (1.03 [1.78]; P < .024) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. More teeth were prescribed composite resin (CR) attachments in the maxilla (P < .0001) in the initial accepted plan of all patients. Issues regarding tooth position protocols (n = 50; 53.3%) and requirement for additional IPR (n = 68; 45.3%) were reasons for treatment plan changes before acceptance of the initial treatment plan by orthodontists. CONCLUSIONS: More than 7 of 10 patients required at least one additional series of aligners after the initial series of Invisalign Lite aligners was completed. Prescription of IPR was more common in the mandible, and prescription of CR attachments was more common in the maxilla.

Clinical expression of programmed maxillary buccal expansion and buccolingual crown inclination with Invisalign EX30 and SmartTrack aligners and the effect of 1-week vs. 2-week aligner change regimes: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective: : This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of 3 different Invisalign® treatment regimens in terms of variations of aligner change frequency and type of aligner material in achieving maxillary dental buccal expansion. Methods: : Altogether, 120 adult patients whose treatment involved maxillary dental expansion with Invisalign® were included. The patients were divided into 3 groups, with each group comprising 40 patients as follows: SmartTrack® 1-week changes (ST1), SmartTrack® 2-week changes (ST2), and EX30® 2-week changes (EX2). The groups were assessed by comparing actual changes achieved with those prescribed by ClinCheck®. The rates of clinically significant inaccuracies (CSI) observed for buccal expansion (≥ 0.5 mm) and buccolingual inclination (≥ 2°) during expansion were then determined. Results: : In terms of expansion, the ST1 group demonstrated the highest CSI rate at all tooth levels, whereas the ST2 group had the lowest rate of CSI and the lowest mean inaccuracy for each tooth level. In terms of buccolingual inclination, the ST1 group had the highest CSI rate across all tooth levels, whereas the EX2 group had the lowest CSI rate at all tooth levels except for the canine level where the ST2 group had the lowest CSI rate. A tendency toward overexpression of buccal crown inclination, and underexpression of buccal expansion was observed at all tooth levels. Conclusions: : Two-week aligner change regimens offer improved accuracy compared with 1-week aligner changes. SmartTrack® 2-week changes were the most accurate for buccal expansion, whereas EX30® 2-week changes were the most accurate for buccolingual inclination.

Interproximal reduction in the refinement phase of Invisalign treatment: A quantitative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Interproximal reduction (IPR) is a common adjunct to contemporary orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to carry out a quantitative analysis of IPR prescribed in the refinement phases of clear aligner therapy with the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif). METHODS: The digital treatment plans (DTPs) of a total of 330 patients treated by 11 orthodontists were evaluated. Relevant data regarding patient age, gender, and prescription of IPR in the initial and refined DTPs were obtained from Align Technology's digital interface, ClinCheck. Computational analyses included descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Most (n = 182; 75.2%) of the 242 patients who satisfied inclusion criteria were females. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 29.2 (22.1-40.2) years. More than 60% of the contact sites prescribed IPR related to the initial DTP (n = 1312; 60.4%), with 39.6% (n = 859) recorded in the refinement DTPs. A median (IQR) of 1.1 (0.6-2.1) mm of IPR was prescribed per patient in the initial DTP compared with a median (IQR) of 0.6 (0.3-1.3) mm in the refinement DTPs. The most common site for prescribed IPR in all DTPs was the mandibular anterior region. Almost half (n = 108; 44.6%) of the patients were prescribed IPR at the same contact point site more than once during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 40% of the contact points that were prescribed IPR were in the patients' refinement DTPs. Most IPR was prescribed for the anterior region of the mandible. Almost half of the patients had IPR repeatedly prescribed at the same sites during treatment.

Clinical efficacy of the Invisalign mandibular advancement appliance: A retrospective investigation.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective investigation aimed to determine whether the achieved changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion were the same as those planned after the prescribed wear of an initial phase of Invisalign treatment with the mandibular advancement appliance (MAA) (Align Technology, Santa Jose, Calif). METHODS: All patients treated with the MAA and who satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were selected from a database of 16,500 patients treated with clear aligners by 16 orthodontists. The pretreatment, planned, and achieved overjet measurements were documented from data provided in Align Technology's software facility, ClinCheck. Changes in intermaxillary anteroposterior (AP) first permanent molar (FPM) relationships were evaluated using Geomagic Control X (3D systems, Rock Hill, SC) metrology software. RESULTS: Most of the 195 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were females (n = 104; 53.3%). The mean age was 12.62 ± 2.20 years. The pretreatment overjet was reduced from 6.49 ± 2.86 mm to 4.61 ± 2.22 mm after prescribed MAA wear, which was 42.5% of the planned outcome. The pretreatment AP FPM reduced from 3.14 ± 1.95 mm to 2.24 ± 2.51 mm, which was 31.3% of that planned. Thirty-eight (19.5%) patients experienced an increase in overjet where a reduction was planned. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of the planned overjet reduction and less than a third of the planned AP FPM correction were achieved with the MAA. Almost 20% of patients completed the MAA phase of treatment with an increased overjet despite a reduction being planned.

Comparison of labio-palatal incisor movement between two wear protocols: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the accuracy of the Invisalign appliance in achieving predicted angular tooth movement of the maxillary central incisors, to locate the center of rotation in a labio-palatal direction, and to investigate any difference between 1-weekly and 2-weekly wear protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study involved a retrospective sample of two groups of 46 Class I adult subjects treated non-extraction with different protocols of 1-weekly and 2-weekly wear. The pretreatment, predicted outcome and achieved outcome digital models were superimposed and measured using metrology software. Angular and center-of-rotation measurements in the sagittal plane for the maxillary right central incisor were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between predicted and achieved angular measurements (P < .005) for labial tooth movements regardless of wear protocol. For palatal movements, no statistically significant difference was observed (P > .05). A small amount of overexpression was observed in some cases. Regarding crown and root control, uncontrolled tipping was the most predictable. No statistically significant difference was found between predicted and achieved center of rotation, but the confidence interval was wide. No statistically significant difference (P > .05) was found between the two wear protocols for the parameters measured. CONCLUSIONS: For maxillary central incisors, labial angular movements were not as accurate as palatal movements. Overcorrection could be recommended with careful clinical monitoring due to the possibility of overexpression. Control of root movements may be unpredictable, and further research is required to draw stronger conclusions. For the parameters measured in this clinical sample, there was no difference between the two wear protocols.

Predicted overbite and overjet changes with the Invisalign appliance: a validation study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the predicted changes in overbite (OB) and overjet (OJ) in Align Technology's (Santa Jose, Calif) digital treatment plan for the prescribed course of treatment with the Invisalign appliance were consistent with those same changes in OB and OJ measured with the Geomagic Control X (Geomagic US, Research, Triangle Park, NC) metrology software system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Geomagic Control X software was used to determine OB and OJ differences between the pretreatment and predicted outcome. STL files for patients satisfying inclusion criteria and undergoing nonextraction orthodontic treatment with the Invisalign appliance. The differences were compared, using the Bland-Altman analysis, to the corresponding data provided by Align Technology's digital treatment-planning interface, ClinCheck. RESULTS: Data regarding 76 adult patients who satisfied strict inclusion criteria were assessed. The Shapiro-Wilks test indicated normality (P > .05). The Bland-Altman analysis showed high levels of agreement between the two measurements, with a bias range of -0.131 to 0.111 for OB and -0.393 to 0.03 for OJ recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and researchers can be confident that measurement data provided by Invisalign's ClinCheck digital treatment-planning facility concerning OB and OJ changes from the initial to the predicted treatment outcome are valid.

Predicted and achieved overjet and overbite measurements with the Invisalign appliance: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether achieved outcome regarding overjet and overbite matched the predicted outcome following treatment with Invisalign (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif) aligner appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data including pretreatment, predicted and achieved overjet, and overbite measurements provided by Align's digital treatment facility, ClinCheck Pro, were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum intraclass correlation (ICC) test results were calculated. RESULTS: From an initial sample of 600, 355 adult patients satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. ICC scores for data input were excellent. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 30.14 (23.33, 39.92) years and most (n = 259; 72.95%) were women. Almost one-third (n = 101; 28.45%) had undergone extraction as part of their treatment. More aligners were prescribed in the initial digital treatment plan for patients (median, 44; IQR: 35, 51.5; minimum, 17; maximum, 92) undergoing extractions as part of their orthodontic treatment than those who were not (median, 24; IQR: 18.25, 32; minimum, 13; maximum, 85) (P < .0001). Planned changes in overjet differed significantly from achieved outcomes (P < .001). Planned increases in overbite resulted in up to more than twice (222.72%) as much increase than predicted. Planned reduction of overbite achieved 8.69% of its predicted reduction in extraction cases. CONCLUSIONS: Achieved overjet and overbite measurements differed significantly from the predicted outcomes at the end of an initial sequence of aligners. Planned increases in overbite resulted in greater overbite correction than predicted, particularly in extraction cases. Planned overbite reduction was challenging, especially in patients with extractions.

Clear aligner therapy practice among orthodontists in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: A cross-sectional survey of the British Orthodontic Society membership.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate clear aligner therapy (CAT) practice among orthodontists in the British Orthodontic Society (BOS). DESIGN: A cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the BOS in 2022. The survey comprised questions regarding respondent demographics, general use of CAT, the choice of proprietary CAT appliances, CAT planning, case selection, treatment protocols and orthodontist-reported CAT problems. RESULTS: Overall, 233 (19.5%) responses were received with the majority (n = 121, 53.1%) being female. Most respondents reported practising in England (n = 171, 74.7%). The majority (n = 177, 77.3%) indicated that they used CAT in their practice, with 48.1% (n = 81) treating 1-20 patients with CAT annually. The most frequently prescribed CAT system was Invisalign (n = 138, 81.2%). One to three changes to the initial digital treatment plan were made by 72.9% (n = 121) with final tooth positions being the most common reason for adjustment (64.4%). Most (n = 97, 60.3%) rarely or never performed premolar extractions with CAT. Of the respondents, 23 12.7%) reported that they always or mostly used a remote monitoring system in conjunction with CAT, with a wide range of aligner change protocols reported. The median number of months required to complete non-extraction CAT reported by the respondents was 12. Most respondents (n = 77, 51.7%) did not feel that CAT provides superior outcomes compared with fixed appliance therapy. CONCLUSION: CAT practice varied widely among the surveyed orthodontists. A predilection for the use of Invisalign and utility in less severe cases was noted.

Predictability of anterior open bite treatment with Invisalign.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior open bite correction with Invisalign has been claimed to have relatively good predictability because of the proposed function of clear aligners to function as occlusal bite-blocks, limiting extrusion of the posterior teeth or possibly even intruding posterior teeth. This proposal, however, remains relatively unsubstantiated. The objective of this study was to investigate and determine the accuracy of Invisalign treatment in correcting anterior open bite by comparing the predicted outcome from ClinCheck to the achieved outcome for the initial aligner sequence. METHODS: A retrospective study used pretreatment and posttreatment intraoral scans and predicted outcomes (ClinCheck) stereolithography files of 76 adult patients from private specialist orthodontic practices. Inclusion criteria comprised nonextraction treatment, with a minimum of 14 dual arch Invisalign aligners. Geomagic Control X software was used to measure overbite and overjet in the pretreatment, posttreatment, and predicted outcomes stereolithography files for each patient. RESULTS: Approximately 66.2% of the programmed open bite closure was expressed compared with the prescribed ClinCheck outcome. The use of posterior occlusal bite-blocks and prescribed movement of teeth via anterior extrusion, posterior intrusion, or a combination of the 2 made no difference to the efficacy of open bite closure. Two-week aligner changes resulted in 0.49 mm more bite closure on average. CONCLUSIONS: The prescribed bite closure in ClinCheck software overestimates the bite closure that is clinically achieved.

The predictability of maxillary curve of Wilson leveling with the Invisalign appliance.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study aims to evaluate the predictability of the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA) in leveling the maxillary curve of Wilson (COW). METHODS: 53 adult subjects treated by orthodontists who are experienced Invisalign providers, between 2013 and 2019 were selected. All patients had either Angle Class I or II malocclusions and were treated by non-extraction in the maxillary arch with a minimum of 14 Invisalign aligners with no bite ramps or auxiliaries. Initial, predicted, and actual outcomes were analyzed with Geomagic Control X software (3D systems, Rock Hill, SC; Version 2017.0.3). RESULTS: Despite planning mean (SD) COW leveling of 0.25 mm (1.91), the curve became significantly more pronounced by 1.15 mm (0.85) (P < .001). There was a significant overexpression of buccal inclinations between mean prescribed versus actual values from 0.10 mm (0.39) (P = .007) to 0.29 mm (0.47) (P < .001) from the first premolars to the second molars, respectively. These differences were more pronounced posteriorly. The differences between the predicted and actual arch width values were underexpressed for all teeth except the second molars; a mean underexpression between 0.28 mm (0.92) and 0.60 mm (1.14). The second molars were the only teeth to overexpress with a mean of 0.42 mm (1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Overall mean maxillary COW was not predictably controlled with Invisalign. The appliance tends to overexpress the buccal crown tip regardless of prescribed direction, especially posteriorly. Arch expansion was underexpressed at all levels of the arch except for second molars which overexpressed by almost four times.

The predictability of maxillary curve of Spee leveling with the Invisalign appliance.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predictability of the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) in leveling the maxillary curve of Spee (COS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective sample of adult subjects treated with the Invisalign appliance between 2013 and 2019 were selected. Patients were treated nonextraction in the maxillary arch and had either Angle Class I or II malocclusions with a minimum of 14 aligners with no bite ramps. Initial, predicted, and actual outcomes were analyzed with Geomagic Control X software (version 2017.0.3; 3D Systems, Cary, NC). RESULTS: A sample of 53 cases satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria. Paired t-tests demonstrated a significant difference between mean predicted and actual maxillary COS leveling with a shortfall of 0.11 mm (SD = 0.37; P = .033). Planned intrusion tended to be more accurate posteriorly with an overexpression of 117% for the first molars. Planned extrusion was the least accurate, with the mid-arch demonstrating expressions of -14% to -48%. These teeth intruded despite a prescribed extrusive movement. CONCLUSIONS: The Invisalign appliance did not accurately predict maxillary COS leveling. Planned intrusive movements were overcorrected, and planned extrusive movements were either undercorrected or resulted in intrusion. This effect was most apparent for the upper first molar, which expressed 117% and -48% of planned intrusion and extrusion, respectively.

Treatment planning protocols with the Invisalign appliance: an exploratory survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the changes made by orthodontists to the initial digital treatment plan (DTP) regarding the Invisalign appliance provided by Align Technology until acceptance of the plan by the orthodontist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DTPs of subjects who underwent treatment with the Invisalign appliance and satisfied inclusion criteria were assessed to determine the number of DTPs and changes regarding prescription of aligners, composite resin (CR) attachments, and interproximal reduction (IPR) between the initial DTP and the accepted plan. Statistical analyses were calculated via GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, Calif). RESULTS: Most of the 431 subjects who satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were female (72.85%). More DTPs were required for subjects who had orthodontic extractions (median [interquartile range; IQR]: 4 [3, 5]) compared with those who did not (median [IQR]: 3 [2, 4], P < .0001). The median (IQR) overall number of aligners prescribed in the accepted DTP (30 [20, 39]) was greater than the initial DTP (30 [22,41], P < .001). The number of teeth used for CR attachments increased from the initial to the accepted DTP (P < .001). More CR attachments were observed in extraction treatment DTPs with a prescribed 2-week aligner change protocol compared with nonextraction treatment (P < .0001). The number of contact points with prescribed IPR increased between initial and accepted DTPs (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes regarding DTP protocols were observed between the initial and accepted DTPs and between nonextraction and extraction-based CAT.

Digital treatment planning and clear aligner therapy: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the total number of digital treatment plan (DTPs) and aligners manufactured for clear aligner therapy (CAT) by Invisalign® from initial treatment planning to the completion of CAT. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients, from each of 11 experienced orthodontists, who commenced treatment over a 12-month period, were assessed regarding the number of DTPs and aligners prescribed from initial planning to completion of CAT. Patients were categorised according to the number of aligners prescribed by the initial DTP into mild (<15), moderate (15-29) or severe (>29). RESULTS: After the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 324 patients (71.9% women; median age = 28.5 years) undergoing non-extraction treatment with the Invisalign® appliance were assessed. The median number of initial DTPs was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] = 2, 1-9) per patient before acceptance by the orthodontist. Most (99.4%) patients required a refinement phase with a median of 2 (IQR = 2, 2-7) refinement plans recorded. A total of 9135 aligners per dental arch, was prescribed in the initial DTP of the 324 patients assessed and 8452 in the refinement phase. The median number of aligners per dental arch prescribed from the initial DTP was 26 (IQR = 12, 6-78) and from the refinement plans was 20.5 (IQR = 17, 0-132). CONCLUSION: A median of three initial DTPs and two refinement plans were required for patients undergoing non-extraction treatment with the Invisalign® appliance. Patients were prescribed almost double the number of aligners initially predicted to manage their malocclusion.

Evaluation of the predicted vs. achieved occlusal outcomes with the Invisalign® appliance: A retrospective investigation of adult patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between occlusal contacts, overbite, transverse expansion, and the buccolingual inclination of the teeth with reference to the predicted treatment outcomes and achieved outcomes related to the use of the Invisalign® appliance in mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The occlusal contacts, overbite, the buccolingual inclination and transverse expansion of the maxillary arch of adult patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria were measured at the initial (pre-treatment), predicted, and achieved treatment stages using metrology software. Pearson correlation coefficients and regression equations were calculated to determine the association between the initial, predicted and achieved changes in occlusal contact against the other variables. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients, who commenced treatment between 2013 and 2018 and satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were evaluated. An overall loss of posterior contact was recorded and highlighted by a significantly greater loss of contact from the maxillary buccal occlusal surfaces compared to the palatal occlusal surfaces. The mean [SD] achieved overbite outcome (2.94mm [1.17]) was greater than the predicted (1.74mm [0.87), P<0.001). The buccolingual inclination was significantly increased for the lateral incisors and first and second molars despite a predicted decrease (P≤0.007). Achieved transverse expansion showed significant variation from the predicted. The loss of posterior occlusal contact was correlated with the buccolingual inclination (r=0.70) and transverse expansion (r=0.74) of the posterior teeth. CONCLUSIONS: In mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusions, treatment using the Invisalign® appliance resulted in an overall loss of posterior contact. The loss of occlusal contact was correlated with deficiencies in achieved buccolingual inclination and transverse expansion of the posterior teeth. Planned bodily expansion was ineffective as most expansion occurred due to unplanned buccal tipping.

Occlusal contacts and treatment with the Invisalign appliance: a retrospective analysis of predicted vs achieved outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the predicted occlusal contact outcomes compared with the clinically achieved occlusal contacts following treatment using the Invisalign aligner appliance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The occlusal contacts of 33 adult patients presenting with a Class I mild-to-moderate malocclusion (spacing <4 mm or crowding of <6 mm) and treated using the Invisalign appliance were measured at the initial, predicted, and achieved stages of treatment by the metrology software Geomagic Control X. Assessed measurements were related to individual teeth and anterior, posterior, and overall contacts. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) difference between the achieved occlusal contact was significantly less than that predicted for overall occlusal contact and posterior occlusal contact (P < .0025). The achieved posterior occlusal contact was also less than pretreatment initial posterior occlusal contact. There was no difference in anterior occlusal contact between the predicted and achieved outcomes (P > .05). The central and lateral incisors displayed no statistically significant difference between the predicted and achieved occlusal contact. The patients with prescribed overcorrection demonstrated a statistically significant difference in predicted occlusal contact compared with those with nonprescribed overcorrection (P ≤ .0025), but no statistically significant difference in achieved occlusal contact. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment by the Invisalign appliance in Class I mild-to-moderate malocclusion resulted in a decrease in posterior occlusal contact. Further research is required to account for the deficiencies between the predicted and achieved clinical outcome related to occlusal contact and to determine the corrective changes required in the treatment protocols.

The predictability of the mandibular curve of Wilson, buccolingual crown inclination, and transverse expansion expression with Invisalign treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to provide an initial investigation into the mandibular curve of Wilson (COW) handling using the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif). Individual buccolingual crown inclinations and transverse expansions were also investigated to detect any regions of ineffectiveness in the dental arch. METHODS: A retrospective sample of patients treated by an experienced Invisalign provider in private practice was used. All adult patients with Class I or II Angle malocclusions and mild to moderate crowding treated using a minimum of 14 Invisalign aligners without intermaxillary elastics, bite ramps, or auxiliaries and a nonextraction mandibular arch from 2013-2019 were selected. Dental models at the initial scan, the ClinCheck prediction, and the outcome after the initial series of aligners were analyzed with Geomagic Control X software (version 2017.0.3; 3D systems, Rock Hill, SC). The COW, buccolingual crown inclination relative to the occlusal plane and cusp tip expansion were compared between ClinCheck changes and achieved changes. RESULTS: Forty-two subjects met the selection criteria. 74% of subjects experienced a flatter COW than ClinCheck predictions, and the mean difference was 0.76 mm (P = 0.0149). The first molars encountered 0.52 mm (P <0.001) more buccal crown inclination than ClinCheck predictions. No other teeth experienced statistically significant buccolingual inclination differences to ClinCheck. The second molars were the only teeth to experience significantly more arch expansion than ClinCheck at 0.68 mm (P = 0.0046). CONCLUSIONS: The Invisalign appliance tended to over-flatten the mandibular COW compared with ClinCheck because of the lack of buccal root torque in the mandibular first molars during expansion. The mandibular second molars were the only teeth to experience more expansion than ClinCheck.

Predictability of lower incisor tip using clear aligner therapy.

BACKGROUND: Uprighting incisors is particularly important with clear aligner therapy as incisor tip determines the mesio-distal space needed in the arch, and consequently the fit of the aligner. The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of ClinCheck® software to predict lower incisor tip by comparing digitally prescribed movements with actual clinical outcomes and to determine whether the presence of a vertically orientated rectangular composite attachment influences the efficacy of incisor tip. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective study included 66 lower incisors from 42 non-extraction adult patients treated using the Invisalign® appliance. Twenty-one incisors had vertical attachments, while 45 incisors did not have any attachments. Lower incisor tip was measured at T0 (pre-treatment), T1 (predicted post-treatment) and T2 (achieved post-treatment) on digital models using metrology software. The change in position from T0 to T1 and T0 to T2 was measured from the estimated centre of resistance (CRes) of each tooth. The estimated centre of rotation was plotted relative to the CRes to describe the type of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) predicted and achieved. RESULTS: Predicted incisor tip and achieved incisor tip were positively correlated (R2 = 0.55; p < 0.001). For every degree of tip planned 0.4 degrees of tip was achieved. The presence of an attachment resulted in 1.2 degrees greater tip (F = 3.7; p = 0.062) and 0.5 mm greater movement of the predicted apex of the tooth (F = 4.3; p = 0.042) compared with the no attachment group. The type of OTM achieved differed from the type predicted. Sixty-seven percent of incisors investigated were predicted to move by root movement, while 46% achieved this type of movement. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of lower incisor tip achieved was on average substantially less than the ClinCheck® displayed. Vertically orientated rectangular attachments are recommended where large root movement is planned, and their presence slightly improves apex movement.

A survey of orthodontic clear aligner practices among orthodontists.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to survey orthodontic clear aligner therapy (CAT) practices among orthodontists in Australia. METHODS: A pilot-tested electronic questionnaire was distributed to 434 full members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions were related to demographics, use and choice of aligners, digital treatment planning, patient selection, treatment protocols, refinements/finishing, retention, and patient-reported aligner issues. Factors regarding the decision not to provide CAT were also surveyed. RESULTS: The response rate was 54.6%. Most orthodontists (93.13%) provided CAT, which made up 24.17% of their annual orthodontic caseload. The median percentage of initial digital treatment plans (DTP) approved without changes was 0, with 4-6 changes reported by 24.14%. Orthodontists reported a mean of 2.02 ± 1.76 refinements per patient. Orthodontists were least comfortable treating patients with bilateral crossbite (71.28%) and deep overbite (62.56%). DTP challenges regarding tooth attachments and tooth positions and issues regarding patient compliance with CAT wear protocols were commonly reported. More than 1 CAT system was used by most (63.92%), with in-house systems used by 21.63%. Orthodontists rarely or never (63.68%) performed premolar extraction treatment with CAT. Adjunctive interproximal reduction was reportedly mostly carried out to relieve crowding and reduce open gingival embrasures. The view that fixed appliances provide better outcomes was a major influence (71.43%) on the decision for those who did not provide any CAT. CONCLUSIONS: CAT practices among orthodontists varied. Further research is required to investigate the challenges in effective CAT provision highlighted in this survey.

Clinical expression of programmed mandibular canine rotation using various attachment protocols and 1- vs 2-week wear protocols with Invisalign SmartTrack aligners: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Rotation of rounded teeth, particularly canines, is reported as one of the most difficult and inaccurate tooth movements with aligners. This retrospective study aimed to assess the accuracy and reliability of prescribed mandibular canine rotation with Invisalign aligners and the influence of attachment type and wear schedule on accuracy. METHODS: A sample of 75 subjects with mandibular canines requiring rotation was collected from an existing database. The initial, predicted finish, and achieved finish, were measured using metrology software, and the differences between predicted and achieved mandibular canine rotations were calculated. The sample was divided into 3 groups: optimized rotation attachments using 1-week wear, optimized rotation attachments using 2-week wear, and conventional rectangular attachments using 2-week wear. RESULTS: Rotation was an underexpressed movement, with an overall median sample efficiency of 75.4%. For all groups, predicted rotation was not equivalent to achieved rotation at a ± 5° equivalence margin. This indicates that none of the Invisalign SmartTrack aligner attachment configurations display clinical accuracy in their predicted rotation. By attachment type, median efficiencies of 81.5%, 76.5%, and 63.1% were found for groups 1-week wear, 2-week wear, and 2-week wear, respectively. By wear schedule, there was no significant difference in efficiency for optimized rotation attachments. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical expression of canine rotation with SmartTrack aligners is less than the prescribed rotation for all attachment configurations. Vertical rectangular attachments were associated with the least accurate expression of prescribed movement. There was no difference in rotation efficiency between 1- or 2-week aligner wear.