Private practice, Los Angeles, Calif.
Department of Orthodontics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023 Dec;164(6):793-804. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.05.028. Epub 2023 Jul 27.
This study compared treatment efficacy for specific tooth movements between 2 clear aligner systems (Clarity [3M Oral Care Solutions, St Paul, Minn] and Invisalign [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif]).
The study sample included 47 patients (7 males, 40 females; mean age, 36.57 ± 15.97 years) treated with Invisalign and 37 (4 males, 33 females; mean age, 34.30 ± 16.35 years) treated with Clarity aligners who completed their first set of aligners and had an initial refinement scan. Initial and predicted models were obtained from the initial simulated treatment plan. The first model of the refinement scan was labeled as achieved. SlicerCMF software (version 3.1; http://www.slicer.org) was used to superimpose the achieved and predicted digital models over the initial ones with regional superimposition on the relatively stable first molars. Nine hundred forty teeth in the Invisalign system were measured for horizontal, vertical, and angular movements and transverse width and compared with similar measurements of 740 teeth for the Clarity aligners. The deviation from the predicted was calculated and compared between both systems.
The deviation achieved from the predicted was significant between the groups for the mandibular interpremolar and intercanine widths (P <0.05). Clarity aligners significantly undercorrected rotations compared with Invisalign for the mandibular first premolars, mandibular canines, maxillary canines, and maxillary central incisors. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the achieved vs predicted movements in the horizontal and vertical planes (P >0.05).
The efficacy of clear aligner therapy systems (Clarity and Invisalign) in treating mild and moderate malocclusions was comparable. Deviation of the achieved movements from the predicted was greatest for rotational and vertical movements.
本研究比较了两种透明矫正器系统（Clarity [3M 口腔护理解决方案，明尼苏达州圣保罗]和 Invisalign [Align Technology，加利福尼亚州圣何塞]）在特定牙齿移动治疗效果。
研究样本包括 47 名接受 Invisalign 治疗的患者（7 名男性，40 名女性；平均年龄 36.57 ± 15.97 岁）和 37 名接受 Clarity 矫正器治疗的患者（4 名男性，33 名女性；平均年龄 34.30 ± 16.35 岁），他们均完成了第一套矫正器治疗，并进行了初始精细扫描。初始和预测模型均从初始模拟治疗计划中获得。精细扫描的第一个模型被标记为已实现。使用 SlicerCMF 软件（版本 3.1；http://www.slicer.org）将实现和预测的数字模型与初始模型进行区域叠加，在相对稳定的第一磨牙上进行区域叠加。在 Invisalign 系统中测量了 940 颗牙齿的水平、垂直和角度移动以及横向宽度，并与 Clarity 矫正器的 740 颗牙齿的类似测量值进行了比较。在两个系统之间计算并比较了从预测值的偏差。
两组之间下颌间磨牙和尖牙宽度的预测与实际的偏差具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。与 Invisalign 相比，Clarity 矫正器对上颌尖牙、下颌尖牙、下颌第一前磨牙和上颌中切牙的旋转矫正有明显的欠矫。在水平和垂直平面上，两组之间的实际与预测运动的偏差无统计学意义（P>0.05）。
透明矫正器治疗系统（Clarity 和 Invisalign）治疗轻度和中度错颌的疗效相当。从预测值的实际运动偏差最大的是旋转和垂直运动。
