Angle Orthod. 2020 Jul 1;90(4):485-490. doi: 10.2319/122919-844.1.
To assess the efficacy and efficiency of treatment in adolescents presenting with mild malocclusions, comparing outcomes using clear aligners to fixed appliances.
Patients identified retrospectively and consecutively from one private practice had been treated with either clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) or fixed appliances (0.022 Damon, Ormco, Orange, Calif; n = 26/group). Assessments of occlusion were made using the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index (DI) for initial records and Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) for final records. Number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time were determined from chart reviews. Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation, Wilcoxon rank tests, unpaired t-tests, and Chi-square tests, with significance set to P ≤ .05.
Pretreatment, the aligner and fixed groups showed no significant difference in overall severity (DI: 11.9 ± 5.3 vs 11.6 ± 4.8) or in any individual DI category. Posttreatment scores showed finishes for the aligner group had fewer discrepancies from ideal relative to the fixed appliance group (CRE: 30.1 ± 8.3 vs 37.0 ± 9.3; P < .01). Patients treated with aligners had fewer appointments (13.7 ± 4.4 vs 19.3 ± 3.6; P < .0001), fewer emergency visits (0.8 ± 1.0 vs 3.6 ± 2.5; P < .0001), and shorter overall treatment time (16.9 ± 5.7 vs 23.4 ± 4.4 months; P < .0001).
Outcomes for treatment of mild malocclusions in adolescents showed equivalent effectiveness of clear aligners compared to fixed appliances, with significantly improved results for clear aligner treatment in terms of tooth alignment, occlusal relations, and overjet. Assessment of the number of appointments, number of emergency visits, and overall treatment time showed better outcomes for treatment with clear aligners.
评估轻度错颌青少年治疗的疗效和效率，比较使用透明牙套和固定矫治器的结果。
从一家私人诊所回顾性和连续选择患者，他们分别接受透明牙套（Invisalign，Align Technology，Santa Clara，Calif）或固定矫治器（0.022 Damon，Ormco，Orange，Calif）治疗（每组 n = 26）。使用美国正畸医师协会错颌畸形指数（DI）评估初始记录，使用 Cast-Radiograph Evaluation（CRE）评估最终记录来评估咬合。从图表审查中确定预约次数、急诊次数和总治疗时间。使用 Pearson 相关分析、Wilcoxon 秩检验、未配对 t 检验和卡方检验分析数据，显著性水平设为 P ≤.05。
治疗前，牙套组和固定组在整体严重程度（DI：11.9 ± 5.3 与 11.6 ± 4.8）或任何单个 DI 类别上均无显著差异。治疗后评分显示，与固定矫治器组相比，牙套组的完成度与理想情况的差异更小（CRE：30.1 ± 8.3 与 37.0 ± 9.3；P <.01）。使用牙套治疗的患者预约次数更少（13.7 ± 4.4 与 19.3 ± 3.6；P <.0001），急诊次数更少（0.8 ± 1.0 与 3.6 ± 2.5；P <.0001），总治疗时间更短（16.9 ± 5.7 与 23.4 ± 4.4 个月；P <.0001）。
青少年轻度错颌治疗的结果表明，透明牙套与固定矫治器的疗效相当，但在牙齿排列、咬合关系和覆盖方面，透明牙套治疗的效果明显更好。评估预约次数、急诊次数和总治疗时间显示，透明牙套治疗的结果更好。
