Gu Jiafeng, Tang Jack Shengyu, Skulski Brennan, Fields Henry W, Beck F Michael, Firestone Allen R, Kim Do-Gyoon, Deguchi Toru
Division of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Division of Dental Hygiene, College of Dentistry, The Ohio state University, Mason, Ohio.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Feb;151(2):259-266. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.041.
The purpose of this retrospective case-control study was to compare the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of the Invisalign system with conventional fixed appliances in treating orthodontic patients with mild to moderate malocclusion in a graduate orthodontic clinic.
Using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index, we evaluated pretreatment and posttreatment records of 48 Invisalign patients and 48 fixed appliances patients. The 2 groups of patients were controlled for general characteristics and initial severity of malocclusion. We analyzed treatment outcome, duration, and improvement between the Invisalign and fixed appliances groups.
The average pretreatment PAR scores (United Kingdom weighting) were 20.81 for Invisalign and 22.79 for fixed appliances (P = 1.0000). Posttreatment weighted PAR scores between Invisalign and fixed appliances were not statistically different (P = 0.7420). On average, the Invisalign patients finished 5.7 months faster than did those with fixed appliances (P = 0.0040). The weighted PAR score reduction with treatment was not statistically different between the Invisalign and fixed appliances groups (P = 0.4573). All patients in both groups had more than a 30% reduction in the PAR scores. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the odds of achieving "great improvement" in the Invisalign group were 0.329 times the odds of achieving "great improvement" in the fixed appliances group after controlling for age (P = 0.0150).
Our data showed that both Invisalign and fixed appliances were able to improve the malocclusion. Invisalign patients finished treatment faster than did those with fixed appliances. However, it appears that Invisalign may not be as effective as fixed appliances in achieving "great improvement" in a malocclusion. This study might help clinicians to determine appropriate patients for Invisalign treatment.
本回顾性病例对照研究的目的是在一家研究生正畸诊所中，比较隐适美系统与传统固定矫治器在治疗轻至中度错牙合畸形正畸患者时的治疗效果和效率。
我们使用同行评估评分（PAR）指数，评估了48例隐适美患者和48例固定矫治器患者的治疗前和治疗后记录。两组患者在一般特征和错牙合畸形的初始严重程度方面进行了对照。我们分析了隐适美组和固定矫治器组之间的治疗结果、持续时间和改善情况。
隐适美组治疗前PAR平均评分（英国权重）为20.81，固定矫治器组为22.79（P = 1.0000）。隐适美组和固定矫治器组治疗后的加权PAR评分无统计学差异（P = 0.7420）。平均而言，隐适美患者比固定矫治器患者提前5.7个月完成治疗（P = 0.0040）。隐适美组和固定矫治器组治疗后加权PAR评分的降低无统计学差异（P = 0.4573）。两组所有患者的PAR评分均降低了30%以上。逻辑回归分析表明，在控制年龄后，隐适美组实现“显著改善”的几率是固定矫治器组的0.329倍（P = 0.0150）。
我们的数据表明，隐适美和固定矫治器都能够改善错牙合畸形。隐适美患者比固定矫治器患者完成治疗的速度更快。然而，在实现错牙合畸形的“显著改善”方面，隐适美似乎不如固定矫治器有效。本研究可能有助于临床医生确定适合隐适美治疗的患者。
