0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A digitalized analysis of incisal changes among orthodontically treated patients: A retrospective comparative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To compare incisor angulation and/or position changes among orthodontically treated patients with metal brackets and clear aligners.

          Methods

          A total of sixty-two participants of both sexes, aged–16–40 years old, with CL I skeletal pattern and mild crowding following strict eligibility criteria were included. The patients were divided into two groups based on their treatment approach. Pre and post lateral cephalograms were collected from Riyadh Elm University (REU) and then digitally analyzed using WEBCEPH (Medical Image Analysis) software. Eight angular and two linear measurements were used for the assessment.

          Results

          The upper incisor angulation and position showed statistically significant differences when orthodontic clear aligners were used. In contrast, no significant difference was observed with the conventional orthodontic treatment. However, the upper incisal palatal root torque decreased after clear aligner therapy compared to conventional treatment. The inter-incisal angle demonstrated a significant increase with clear aligners compared to conventional treatment.

          Conclusions

          The current study revealed the importance of definitive guidelines upon and after treatment, in addition to determining incisor changes. Orthodontic clear aligners are distinct from conventional treatments in controlling the incisors’ angulation and position. The expansion treatment modality precedes Interproximal reduction in increasing the arch perimeter.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements.

          W Houston (1983)
          The sources of error in cephalometric measurement and their analyses are discussed. The importance of distinguishing bias and random errors is emphasized, and methods of control are discussed. Randomization of record measurement is one of the most important methods of avoiding bias, but it is rarely undertaken in cephalometric studies. Random errors are particularly important in the evaluation of individual radiographs, and a measurement that has a high error in relation to its total variability will be of little value in clinical assessment. In serial studies of facial change, the error variance is always a major part of the total variance and thus results have to be interpreted with caution. In cross-sectional studies it is not possible to specify exactly the acceptable limits of random errors, because this will depend on the difference between groups that would be of interest and on the number of cases. The judicious replication of measurements can be important in the control of random errors. In many papers, adequate error evaluation and control is lacking. In these circumstances, the results are of limited value because it is not possible to tell whether an apparent effect is the result of bias in measurement or whether a real effect is being obscured by random errors. It is incumbent on authors to consider how their measurement errors should affect the interpretation of results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

            This treatment-outcome assessment objectively compares Invisalign (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) treatment with braces. This study, a retrospective cohort analysis, was conducted in New York, NY, in 2004. Records from 2 groups of 48 patients (Invisalign and braces groups) were evaluated by using methods from the American Board of Orthodontics Phase III examination. The discrepancy index was used to analyze pretreatment records to control for initial severity of malocclusion. The objective grading system (OGS) was used to systematically grade posttreatment records. Statistical analyses evaluated treatment outcome, duration, and strengths and weaknesses of Invisalign compared with braces. The Invisalign group lost 13 OGS points more than the braces group on average, and the OGS passing rate for Invisalign was 27% lower than that for braces. Invisalign scores were consistently lower than braces scores for buccolingual inclination, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and overjet. Invisalign's OGS scores were negatively correlated to initial overjet, occlusion, and buccal posterior crossibite. Invisalign patients finished 4 months sooner than those with fixed appliances on average. P < .05 was used to determine statistically significant differences. According to the OGS, Invisalign did not treat malocclusions as well as braces in this sample. Invisalign was especially deficient in its ability to correct large anteroposterior discrepancies and occlusal contacts. The strengths of Invisalign were its ability to close spaces and correct anterior rotations and marginal ridge heights. This study might help clinicians to determine which patients are best suited for Invisalign treatment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating index

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                23 April 2024
                2024
                : 13
                : 343
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Preventive Dentistry Department, Riyadh Elem University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [2 ]Dental intern, College of Medicine and Dentistry, Riyadh Elm University, Ryadh, Saudi Arabia
                [1 ]University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil
                [2 ]Ingá University Center UNINGÁ, Maringá, Brazil
                [1 ]Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5842-9317
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.145095.1
                11234081
                38988878
                66f83cbc-dc82-463f-9462-4d019003e677
                Copyright: © 2024 Ajwa N et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 March 2024
                Funding
                The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                clear aligner,orthodontics,metal brackets,incisors analysis,inclination,lateral cephalometries

                Comments

                Comment on this article