Cargando…

Treatment of class II malocclusion with Invisalign®: A pilot study using digital model-integrated maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The treatment effects of Invisalign® are still obscure due to methodological limitations of previous studies. We introduced a method to comprehensively evaluate the dental and skeletal changes of Class II malocclusion treated non-extraction with Invisalign® and compare with the v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Shih-Yin, Hung, Min-Chih, Lu, Li-Hsin, Sun, Jui-Sheng, Tsai, Shih-Jaw, Zwei-Chieng Chang, Jenny
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9831838/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36643222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2022.08.027
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The treatment effects of Invisalign® are still obscure due to methodological limitations of previous studies. We introduced a method to comprehensively evaluate the dental and skeletal changes of Class II malocclusion treated non-extraction with Invisalign® and compare with the virtual simulation of ClinCheck® using digital models integrated into maxillofacial cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) scanned digital images of actual dentitions were integrated into maxillofacial CBCT images. To evaluate three-dimensional movement of maxillary teeth and change of mandible position, T1 and T2 digital model-integrated maxillofacial CBCT images were superimposed using voxel-based registrations of stable cranial base structures. To evaluate movement of mandibular teeth, model-integrated mandibular CBCT superimposition was registered on mandibular basal bone. To compare achieved and predicted tooth movements, the actual dental images and the virtual digital models created by ClinCheck® were registered on the T1 dentitions. RESULTS: For simulated upper first molar (U6) distalization of more than 1 mm, treatment accuracy ranged from 31.1% to 40.1%, which was significantly less than virtual planning and previous reports. In unilateral Class II subjects, the amount of U6 distalization on the Class II side was not significantly different from contralateral side, indicating efficacy of sequential distalization was questionable. Those with favorable overjet correction showed evidence of condylar distraction. CONCLUSION: Digital model-integrated CBCT superimpositions reflected the actual treatment changes in comparison with the virtual simulation, and showed that ideal occlusion was not achieved in mild to moderate Class II adult patients treated non-extraction with Invisalign®.