Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment
| Autor: | Vincenzo Grassia, Letizia Perillo, Maria Elena De Felice, Ludovica Nucci, Carlos Flores-Mir, Adriana Fiori |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | De Felice, M. E., Nucci, L., Fiori, A., Flores-Mir, C., Perillo, L., Grassia, V. |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_treatment
Orthodontics Dental Arch Orthodontic Appliances Removable Humans Medicine Virtual digital planning Bicuspid Arch Dental Enamel Reduction (orthopedic surgery) Interproximal enamel reduction Enamel paint business.industry Research lcsh:RK1-715 Systematic measurement Crowding visual_art lcsh:Dentistry visual_art.visual_art_medium business Stripping Clear aligner Human |
| Zdroj: | Progress in Orthodontics, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2020) Progress in Orthodontics |
| ISSN: | 2196-1042 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s40510-020-00329-1 |
| Popis: | Aim The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the actual space obtained through interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) compared to the amount of IPR planned through the digital setup during clear aligner treatment (CAT). Materials and methods A total of 10 clinicians were randomly recruited using the Doctor Locator by Align Technology (California). For each clinician, four consecutive patients treated with CAT and manual stripping were selected for a total of 40 subjects and 80 dental arches. For each patient, the amount of planned IPR and the amount of actual IPR performed were recorded. Each arch was considered individually. For each arch, the mesio-distal tooth measurements were obtained from second to second premolars. Results No systematic measurement errors were identified. In 25 cases, stripping was planned and performed in both arches; in 4 cases only in the upper arch and in the remaining 7 cases only in the lower arch. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR was on average 0.55 mm (SD, 0.67; P = 0.022) in the upper arch and 0.82 mm (SD, 0.84; P = 0.026) in the lower arch. The accuracy of IPR in the upper arch was estimated to be 44.95% for the upper arch and 37.02% for the lower arch. Conclusion Overall, this study showed that the amount of enamel removed in vivo did not correspond with the amount of IPR planned. In most cases, the performed IPR amount was lower than planned. When considering the actual amount in millimeter, these differences may not be considered clinically relevant. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink