{"title":"The predictability of maxillary curve of Wilson leveling with the Invisalign appliance","authors":"Zi Wei Lim , Tony Weir , Maurice J. Meade","doi":"10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This retrospective study aims to evaluate the predictability of the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA) in leveling the maxillary curve of Wilson (COW).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>53 adult subjects treated by orthodontists who are experienced Invisalign providers, between 2013 and 2019 were selected. All patients had either Angle Class I or II malocclusions and were treated by non-extraction in the maxillary arch with a minimum of 14 Invisalign aligners with no bite ramps or auxiliaries. Initial, predicted, and actual outcomes were analyzed with Geomagic Control X software (3D systems, Rock Hill, SC; Version 2017.0.3).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Despite planning mean (SD) COW leveling of 0.25 mm (1.91), the curve became significantly more pronounced by 1.15 mm (0.85) (<em>P</em> < .001). There was a significant overexpression of buccal inclinations between mean prescribed versus actual values from 0.10 mm (0.39) (<em>P</em> = .007) to 0.29 mm (0.47) (<em>P</em> < .001) from the first premolars to the second molars, respectively. These differences were more pronounced posteriorly. The differences between the predicted and actual arch width values were underexpressed for all teeth except the second molars; a mean underexpression between 0.28 mm (0.92) and 0.60 mm (1.14). The second molars were the only teeth to overexpress with a mean of 0.42 mm (1.02).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Overall mean maxillary COW was not predictably controlled with Invisalign. The appliance tends to overexpress the buccal crown tip regardless of prescribed direction, especially posteriorly. Arch expansion was underexpressed at all levels of the arch except for second molars which overexpressed by almost four times.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","volume":"12 5","pages":"Pages 207-212"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221244382300053X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Background
This retrospective study aims to evaluate the predictability of the Invisalign appliance (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA) in leveling the maxillary curve of Wilson (COW).
Methods
53 adult subjects treated by orthodontists who are experienced Invisalign providers, between 2013 and 2019 were selected. All patients had either Angle Class I or II malocclusions and were treated by non-extraction in the maxillary arch with a minimum of 14 Invisalign aligners with no bite ramps or auxiliaries. Initial, predicted, and actual outcomes were analyzed with Geomagic Control X software (3D systems, Rock Hill, SC; Version 2017.0.3).
Results
Despite planning mean (SD) COW leveling of 0.25 mm (1.91), the curve became significantly more pronounced by 1.15 mm (0.85) (P < .001). There was a significant overexpression of buccal inclinations between mean prescribed versus actual values from 0.10 mm (0.39) (P = .007) to 0.29 mm (0.47) (P < .001) from the first premolars to the second molars, respectively. These differences were more pronounced posteriorly. The differences between the predicted and actual arch width values were underexpressed for all teeth except the second molars; a mean underexpression between 0.28 mm (0.92) and 0.60 mm (1.14). The second molars were the only teeth to overexpress with a mean of 0.42 mm (1.02).
Conclusions
Overall mean maxillary COW was not predictably controlled with Invisalign. The appliance tends to overexpress the buccal crown tip regardless of prescribed direction, especially posteriorly. Arch expansion was underexpressed at all levels of the arch except for second molars which overexpressed by almost four times.