Arch expansion with the Invisalign system: Efficacy and predictability.

<h4>Background</h4>In adult patients, treatment of skeletal crossbite requires combined treatment by fixed or removable appliances and orthognathic surgery. In cases of dentoalveolar crossbite, expansion can be achieved with fixed multibrackets and removable transparent aligners. Various...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ignacio Morales-Burruezo, José-Luis Gandía-Franco, Juan Cobo, Arturo Vela-Hernández, Carlos Bellot-Arcís
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242979
Description
Summary:<h4>Background</h4>In adult patients, treatment of skeletal crossbite requires combined treatment by fixed or removable appliances and orthognathic surgery. In cases of dentoalveolar crossbite, expansion can be achieved with fixed multibrackets and removable transparent aligners. Various researchers have already assessed the Invisalign system's predictability for arch expansion. However, most of this research was conducted using older appliances, making it necessary to assess the characteristics of the updated system SmartTrack.<h4>Material and methods</h4>A sample of 114 patients with transverse malocclusion were treated with SmartTrack. The predictability of the system's software (Clincheck) was assessed by comparing planned measurements (width of canines, premolars and molars rotations and inclinations) with the real measurements achieved at the end of the first treatment phase. Measurements were imported to Clincheck software to create three data sets; T1: initial measurements at start of treatment; T2: Clincheck predicted measurements at end of first treatment phase; T3: measurements taken at start of the second treatment phase.<h4>Results</h4>Widths underwent significant advances as a result of treatment. For all widths, virtual planning obtained prognoses of greater expansion than actually achieved: a mean of 0.63 mm more expansion at the canine level (p<0.001), 0.77 mm at first premolar (p<0.001), 0.81 at second premolar (p<0.001), 0.69 mm at first molar (p<0.001), and 0.25 mm at second molar (p = 0.183). All the treatment plan's estimations, with the exception of the second molar, were significantly higher than the actual outcomes.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Aligners are an effective tool for producing arch expansion, being more effective in premolar area and less effective in canine and second molar area. Predictability was reasonable for expansion movement. Overcorrection should be considered at the virtual planning stage in order to obtain the expected outcomes.
ISSN:1932-6203