Graduate Dentistry Program, School of Life Sciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Department of Orthodontics, Juiz de Fora Federal University, and Private practice, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022 Oct;162(4):e176-e182. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.07.007. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
This retrospective study aimed to evaluate whether the treatment of Class II malocclusion with Invisalign aligners with sequential distalization of posterior teeth in adult patients would meet the criteria of American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) standards for the treatment and assess the predictive value of ClinCheck Pro software with the final results comparing the initial time, predictive planning using ClinCheck Pro software, and the final time without any require refinement.
The sample consisted of 32 adult patients with Class II malocclusion (n = 32 [7 men and 25 women]; mean age 35.47 ± 9.61 years). All of them used a set of Invisalign aligners; no refinement set was evaluated. The 7 measurements of the ABO Model Grading System, the millimeter measurements for the anteroposterior ratios of maxillary first molars and the overbite were used in the evaluations and were compared in phases initial time, predictive planning using ClinCheck Pro software, and the final time. For the intraexaminer reliability test, the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the reliability of the measures. The Shapiro-Wilk normality test was used to examine whether the variables were normally distributed. The Wilcoxon nonparametric test for paired samples was applied for variables that did not show normal distribution. The parametric Student t test for paired samples was used for variables that presented normal distribution. The significance level adopted for this study was 0.05.
In comparison between final ClinCheck and posttreatment results, the ABO index showed a statistically significant difference between the predictions and results for alignment and rotation, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal contact, occlusal relationship, molar relationship, and overbite. The final score of the ABO scores did not meet the standards for Class II correction, contrary to what the ClinCheck Pro software predicted.
The null hypothesis that distalization of the posterior teeth occurs in adult patients using Invisalign aligners was rejected. The treatment of Class II malocclusion with Invisalign aligners did not occur as estimated by the virtual planning prepared by ClinCheck according to the standards for evaluating occlusal results established by the ABO at the end of the use of a set of aligners with sequential distalization.
本回顾性研究旨在评估使用 Invisalign 矫治器对成年患者的 II 类错颌进行治疗,是否能达到美国正畸委员会(ABO)的标准,以及评估 ClinCheck Pro 软件的预测价值,比较最终结果与初始时间、ClinCheck Pro 软件预测规划以及最终无需任何调整的时间。
该样本由 32 名患有 II 类错颌的成年患者组成(n=32 [7 名男性和 25 名女性];平均年龄 35.47±9.61 岁)。所有患者均使用了一套 Invisalign 矫治器,不评估精细调整组。使用 ABO 模型分级系统的 7 项测量、上颌第一磨牙前后比例的毫米测量值和覆𬌗来进行评估,并在初始时间、ClinCheck Pro 软件预测规划以及最终时间进行比较。对于内部观察者可靠性测试,计算了组内相关系数以分析测量值的可靠性。使用 Shapiro-Wilk 正态性检验来检验变量是否呈正态分布。对于不呈正态分布的变量,应用 Wilcoxon 非参数配对样本检验。对于呈正态分布的变量,应用参数配对样本 Student t 检验。本研究采用的显著性水平为 0.05。
与最终 ClinCheck 和治疗后结果相比,ABO 指数在对齐和旋转、颊舌倾斜、覆𬌗、牙合接触、牙合关系、磨牙关系和覆𬌗的预测值和结果之间存在统计学显著差异。ABO 评分的最终得分不符合 II 类矫正的标准,与 ClinCheck Pro 软件的预测相反。
使用 Invisalign 矫治器对成年患者进行后牙远移的零假设被拒绝。使用 Invisalign 矫治器治疗 II 类错颌的效果不如 ClinCheck 根据 ABO 制定的评价牙合结果标准,通过对一组带有序列远移的矫治器进行虚拟规划所预测的那样。