Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan.
School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 27;19(11):6569. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116569.
Background. Clear aligners have become a treatment alternative to metal brackets in recent years due to the advantages of aesthetics, comfort, and oral health improvement. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the clinical characteristics and dental indices of orthodontic patients using aligners or brackets. Methods. A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021. Patients were stratified by types of treatment (Invisalign® clear aligner (n = 60) or metal bracket (n = 110). Results: Patients were aged 26.1 ± 7.2 years, and most were female (75.0%). The Invisalign® group was older than the bracket group (p = 0.003). The skeletal relationships were mainly Class I (49.4%), followed by Class II (30.0%) and Class III (20.6%). The molar relationships were primarily Class I (38.8%), followed by Class II (37.1%) and Class III (24.1%). The decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index was 9.9 ± 6.0, including 2.1 ± 2.9 for decayed teeth, 0.5 ± 1.1 for missing teeth, and 7.3 ± 4.3 for filled teeth. There were no significant differences in the DMFT index or skeletal and molar relationships between the groups (p > 0.05). The index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) was 56.8 ± 13.5, and the score was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (p = 0.002). Among the variables included in the ICON assessment, only the aesthetic variable was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (p < 0.001). The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle was 27.9 ± 5.1 degrees. Finally, the E-line of the lower lip was lower in the Invisalign® group than in the bracket group (1.5 ± 2.4 versus 2.8 ± 3.1, p = 0.005). Conclusions. Older patients showed a greater intention to choose Invisalign® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. The demand for Invisalign® aligner treatment for aesthetic reasons was substantial. A soft tissue profile with more protrusive lower lips and a greater need for orthodontic treatment was found in the bracket group.
近年来，由于美观、舒适和口腔健康改善等优势，透明牙套已成为金属托槽治疗的替代方法。然而，很少有研究分析使用牙套或托槽的正畸患者的临床特征和牙齿指标。
2021 年，共有 170 名患者在长庚纪念医院接受正畸治疗。患者按治疗类型分层（Invisalign®透明牙套（n=60）或金属托槽（n=110））。
患者年龄为 26.1±7.2 岁，多数为女性（75.0%）。Invisalign®组患者年龄大于托槽组（p=0.003）。骨骼关系主要为 I 类（49.4%），其次为 II 类（30.0%）和 III 类（20.6%）。磨牙关系主要为 I 类（38.8%），其次为 II 类（37.1%）和 III 类（24.1%）。龋齿、缺失和填充牙（DMFT）指数为 9.9±6.0，其中龋齿为 2.1±2.9，缺失牙为 0.5±1.1，填充牙为 7.3±4.3。两组 DMFT 指数或骨骼和磨牙关系无显著差异（p＞0.05）。复杂性结果和需求指数（ICON）为 56.8±13.5，Invisalign®组低于托槽组（p=0.002）。在 ICON 评估中包含的变量中，只有美学变量在 Invisalign®组中低于托槽组（p＜0.001）。法兰克福-下颌平面角为 27.9±5.1 度。最后，下唇的 E 线在 Invisalign®组中低于托槽组（1.5±2.4 与 2.8±3.1，p=0.005）。
年龄较大的患者更倾向于选择 Invisalign®治疗来改善牙齿美观，而年轻患者则更倾向于选择金属托槽治疗。出于美观原因，对 Invisalign®牙套治疗的需求很大。在托槽组中发现了软组织轮廓更突出的下唇和更大的正畸治疗需求。
