Skip to main content

Accuracy of invisalign® treatments in the anterior tooth region

First results

Genauigkeit von Invisalign®-Behandlungen im Frontzahnbereich

Erste Ergebnisse

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie volume 72, pages 141–149 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Aim

To analyse (a) to what extent the pretreatment model at the beginning of the treatment corresponds to the initial position in the ClinCheck® and (b) to what extent the predicted treatment result corresponds to the actual result of the therapy at the end of the treatment.

Material and methods

Pre- and posttreatment models as well as the initial and final position of the ClinCheck with a total of 35 patients aged between 15 and 59 were measured; all of whom were treated by using the Invisalign® technology (Invisalign®, Align Technology, S.C., Calif., USA). The measurement of the initial and final models was conducted by using an electronic digital calliper rule, i.e. that of ClinCheck® using the measurement tool ToothMeasure® of Invisalign® Software. The following parameters in the anterior region were measured: Overjet, Overbite, dental midline shift.

Results

Pretreament models and the initial ClinChecks® revealed slight deviations in the parameters overjet 0.08 mm (standard deviation (SD) 0.3), overbite 0.3 mm (SD 0.4) and dental midline deviation 0.1mm (SD 0.4). The final model and the final ClinCheck® revealed larger deviations: the differences for the Overjet were on average 0.4 mm (SD 0.7), Overbite 0.9 mm (SD 0.9) and dental midline shift 0.4 mm (SD 0.5).

Conclusions

The IT-based transmission of mal-aligned teeth into the ClinCheck® presentation provides sufficiently good accuracy. Tooth corrections in the vertical plane were more difficult to realize. A vertical overcorrection in the final ClinCheck®, a case refinement at the end of the treatment or additional measures (e.g. horizontal beveled attachments or vertical elastics) seems useful to achieve the individually intended therapeutic goal.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Ziel dieser Pilotstudie war es zu prüfen, (a) inwieweit das Anfangsmodell zu Behandlungsbeginn mit der Anfangsposition im ClinCheck® und (b) das prognostizierte Behandlungsergebnis mit dem tatsächlichen Therapieergebnis zu Behandlungsende übereinstimmte.

Material und Methode

Es wurden die Anfangs- und Endmodelle sowie die Anfangs- und Endposition des ClinChecks® von insgesamt 35 Patienten im Alter von 15 bis 59 Jahren vermessen, die ausschließlich mit Invisalign® (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) behandelt wurden. Die Vermessung der Anfangs- und Endmodelle erfolgte mittels einer elektronischen Digital-Schiebelehre, die des ClinChecks® mittels des Vermessungs-Tool ToothMeasure® der Invisalign® Software. Folgende Parameter im Frontbereich wurden vermessen: Overjet, Overbite, dentale Mittellinienverschiebung (Ober- zu Unterkiefer).

Ergebnisse

Anfangsmodell und Anfangs-ClinCheck® zeigten geringe Abweichungen bezüglich der Parameter; beim Overjet im Mittel 0,08 mm (SD ±0,3 mm), Overbite 0,3 mm (SD ± 0,4 mm), dentale Mittellinenabweichung 0,1 mm (SD ±0,4 mm). End-ClinCheck® und Endmodell zeigten größere Abweichungen: die Differenz betrug für den Overjet durchschnittlich 0,4 mm (SD ±0,7 mm), Overbite 0,9 mm (SD ±0,9 mm) und Mittellinienverschiebung 0,4 mm (SD ±0,5 mm).

Schlussfolgerung

Die EDV basierte Übertragung der klinischen Zahnfehlstellung in die ClinCheck® Darstellung lieferte lediglich minimale Abweichungen. Zahnkorrekturen in der vertikalen Ebene erschienen schwieriger zu realisieren. Daher erscheint eine vertikale Überkorrektur im End-ClinCheck®, ein Case refinement gegen Ende der Behandlung oder unterstützende Maßnahmen (z.B. die Verwendung von horizontal abgeschrägten Attachments oder vertikalen Gummizügen) sinnvoll, um das individuell angestrebte Therapieziel zu erreichen.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Align Technology. The Invisalign® reference guide. http://passthrough.fw-notify.net/download/620383/http://www.aligntechinstitute.com/files/pdf/foreign/RefGuide_G.pdf

  2. Align Technology. Attachment protocol summary. http://www. aligntechinstitute.com/GetHelp/Documents/pdf

  3. Bollen AM, Huang G, King G et al (2003) Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 1: Ability to complete treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:496–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyd RL (2005) Surgical-orthodontic treatment of two skeletal Class III patients with Invisalign® and fixed appliances. J Clin Orthod 39:245–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyd RL (2007) Complex orthodontic treatment using a new protocol for the Invisalign® appliance. J Clin Orthod 41:525–547

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyd RL (2008) Esthetic orthodontic treatment using the invisalign® appliance for moderate to complex malocclusions. J Dent Educ 72:948–967

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clements KM, Bollen AM, Huang G et al (2003) Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 2: dental improvements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:502–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A (2005) Outcome assessment of Invisalign® and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:292–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eliades T, Pratsinis H, Athanasiou AE et al (2009) Cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of Invisalign® appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:100–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gracco A, Mazzoli A, Favoni O et al (2009) Short-term chemical and physical changes in invisalign® appliances. Aust Orthod J 25:34–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hönn M, Göz G (2006) A premolar extraction case using the Invisalign® system. J Orofac Orthop 67:385–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Joffe L (2003) Invisalign®: early experiences. J Orthod 30:348–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, Agran B, Viana G (2008) Influence of attachments and interproximal reduction on the accuracy of canine rotation with Invisalign®. A prospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 78:682–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E et al (2009) How well does Invisalign® work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign®. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:27–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuo E, Miller RJ (2003) Automated custom-manufacturing technology in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:578–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Meier B, Wiemer KB, Miethke RR (2003) Invisalign®-patient profiling. Analysis of a prospective survey. J Orofac Orthop 64:352–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Melkos AB (2005) Advances in digital technology and orthodontics: a reference to the Invisalign® method. Med Sci Monit 11:PI 39– PI 42

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller RJ, Duong TT, Derakhshan M (2002) Lower incisor extraction treatment with the Invisalign® system. J Clin Orthod 36:95–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nguyen CV, Chen J (2006) Three-dimensional superimposition tool. In: Tuncay OC (ed) The Invisalign® system. Quintessence, New Malden, p 12–32

  20. Schupp W, Haubrich J, Neumann I (2010) Invisalign (®) treatment of patients with craniomandibular disorders. Int Orthod 8:253–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schuster S, Eliades G, Zinelis S et al (2004) Structural conformation and leaching from in vitro aged and retrieved Invisalign® appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:725–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vlaskalic V, Boyd RL (2002) Clinical evolution of the Invisalign® appliance. J Calif Dent Assoc 30:769–776

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wheeler TT (2004) Invisalign® material studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:19A

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Interessenkonflikt

Keine Angaben

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland

    E. Krieger, I. Saric, B.A. Jung & H. Wehrbein

  2. Kieferorthopädische Praxis, Mainz, Deutschland

    J. Seiferth

Authors
  1. E. Krieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Seiferth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Saric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B.A. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Wehrbein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Krieger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krieger, E., Seiferth, J., Saric, I. et al. Accuracy of invisalign® treatments in the anterior tooth region. J Orofac Orthop 72, 141–149 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0017-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0017-4

Keywords

  • Invisalign®
  • ClinCheck®
  • Anterior crowding

Schlüsselwörter

  • Invisalign®
  • ClinCheck®
  • Frontaler Engstand