{"title":"Invisalign矫治器的治疗计划方案：一项探索性调查。","authors":"Maurice J Meade, Tony Weir","doi":"10.2319/111422-783.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the changes made by orthodontists to the initial digital treatment plan (DTP) regarding the Invisalign appliance provided by Align Technology until acceptance of the plan by the orthodontist.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The DTPs of subjects who underwent treatment with the Invisalign appliance and satisfied inclusion criteria were assessed to determine the number of DTPs and changes regarding prescription of aligners, composite resin (CR) attachments, and interproximal reduction (IPR) between the initial DTP and the accepted plan. Statistical analyses were calculated via GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, Calif).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the 431 subjects who satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were female (72.85%). More DTPs were required for subjects who had orthodontic extractions (median [interquartile range; IQR]: 4 [3, 5]) compared with those who did not (median [IQR]: 3 [2, 4], P < .0001). The median (IQR) overall number of aligners prescribed in the accepted DTP (30 [20, 39]) was greater than the initial DTP (30 [22,41], P < .001). The number of teeth used for CR attachments increased from the initial to the accepted DTP (P < .001). More CR attachments were observed in extraction treatment DTPs with a prescribed 2-week aligner change protocol compared with nonextraction treatment (P < .0001). The number of contact points with prescribed IPR increased between initial and accepted DTPs (P < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant changes regarding DTP protocols were observed between the initial and accepted DTPs and between nonextraction and extraction-based CAT.</p>","PeriodicalId":50790,"journal":{"name":"Angle Orthodontist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10575643/pdf/i1945-7103-93-5-501.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment planning protocols with the Invisalign appliance: an exploratory survey.\",\"authors\":\"Maurice J Meade, Tony Weir\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/111422-783.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the changes made by orthodontists to the initial digital treatment plan (DTP) regarding the Invisalign appliance provided by Align Technology until acceptance of the plan by the orthodontist.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The DTPs of subjects who underwent treatment with the Invisalign appliance and satisfied inclusion criteria were assessed to determine the number of DTPs and changes regarding prescription of aligners, composite resin (CR) attachments, and interproximal reduction (IPR) between the initial DTP and the accepted plan. Statistical analyses were calculated via GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, Calif).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most of the 431 subjects who satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were female (72.85%). More DTPs were required for subjects who had orthodontic extractions (median [interquartile range; IQR]: 4 [3, 5]) compared with those who did not (median [IQR]: 3 [2, 4], P < .0001). The median (IQR) overall number of aligners prescribed in the accepted DTP (30 [20, 39]) was greater than the initial DTP (30 [22,41], P < .001). The number of teeth used for CR attachments increased from the initial to the accepted DTP (P < .001). More CR attachments were observed in extraction treatment DTPs with a prescribed 2-week aligner change protocol compared with nonextraction treatment (P < .0001). The number of contact points with prescribed IPR increased between initial and accepted DTPs (P < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant changes regarding DTP protocols were observed between the initial and accepted DTPs and between nonextraction and extraction-based CAT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Angle Orthodontist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10575643/pdf/i1945-7103-93-5-501.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Angle Orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/111422-783.1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/111422-783.1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Treatment planning protocols with the Invisalign appliance: an exploratory survey.
Objectives: To investigate the changes made by orthodontists to the initial digital treatment plan (DTP) regarding the Invisalign appliance provided by Align Technology until acceptance of the plan by the orthodontist.
Materials and methods: The DTPs of subjects who underwent treatment with the Invisalign appliance and satisfied inclusion criteria were assessed to determine the number of DTPs and changes regarding prescription of aligners, composite resin (CR) attachments, and interproximal reduction (IPR) between the initial DTP and the accepted plan. Statistical analyses were calculated via GraphPad Prism 9.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, Calif).
Results: Most of the 431 subjects who satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria were female (72.85%). More DTPs were required for subjects who had orthodontic extractions (median [interquartile range; IQR]: 4 [3, 5]) compared with those who did not (median [IQR]: 3 [2, 4], P < .0001). The median (IQR) overall number of aligners prescribed in the accepted DTP (30 [20, 39]) was greater than the initial DTP (30 [22,41], P < .001). The number of teeth used for CR attachments increased from the initial to the accepted DTP (P < .001). More CR attachments were observed in extraction treatment DTPs with a prescribed 2-week aligner change protocol compared with nonextraction treatment (P < .0001). The number of contact points with prescribed IPR increased between initial and accepted DTPs (P < .0001).
Conclusions: Significant changes regarding DTP protocols were observed between the initial and accepted DTPs and between nonextraction and extraction-based CAT.
期刊介绍：
The Angle Orthodontist is the official publication of the Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists and is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September and November by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation Inc.
The Angle Orthodontist is the only major journal in orthodontics with a non-commercial, non-profit publisher -- The E. H. Angle Education and Research Foundation. We value our freedom to operate exclusively in the best interests of our readers and authors. Our website www.angle.org is completely free and open to all visitors.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
