Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Aligner | Research article

Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis

Authors: Giuseppina Laganà, Arianna Malara, Roberta Lione, Carlotta Danesi, Simonetta Meuli, Paola Cozza

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of the study was to compare the amount of interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) provided on ClinCheck software with the amount of IPR carried out by the orthodontist during treatment with clear aligners.

Methods

30 subjects (14 males, 16 females; mean age of 24.53 ± 13.41 years) randomly recruited from the Invisalign account of the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Rome “Tor Vergata” from November 2018 to October 2019, were collected according to the following inclusion criteria: mild to moderate dento-alveolar discrepancy (1.5–6.5 mm); Class I canine and molar relationship; full permanent dentition (excluding third molars); both arches treated only using Comprehensive Package by Invisalign system; treatment plan including IPR. Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital models (.stl files), created from an iTero scan, were collected from all selected patients. The OrthoCAD digital software was used to measure tooth mesiodistal width in upper and lower arches before (T0) and at the end of treatment (T1) before any refinement. The widest mesio-distal diameter was measured for each tooth excluding molars by “Diagnostic” OrthoCAD tool. The total amount of IPR performed during treatment was obtained comparing the sum of mesio-distal widths of all measured teeth at T0 and T1. Significant T1–T0 differences were tested with dependent sample t-test (P < 0.05).

Results

In the upper arch, IPR was digitally planned on average for 0.62 mm while in the lower arch was on average for 1.92 mm. As for the amount of enamel actually removed after IPR performing, it was on average 0.62 mm in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the mean of IPR carried out was 1.93 mm. The difference between planned IPR and performed IPR is described: this difference was on average 0.00 mm in the upper arch and 0.01 in the lower arch.

Conclusions

The amount of enamel removed in vivo corresponded with the amount of IPR planned by the Orthodontist using ClinCheck software.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Charalampakis O, Iliadi A, Ueno H, Oliver DR, Kim KB. Accuracy of clear aligners: a retrospective study of patients who needed refinement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;154(1):47–54.CrossRef Charalampakis O, Iliadi A, Ueno H, Oliver DR, Kim KB. Accuracy of clear aligners: a retrospective study of patients who needed refinement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;154(1):47–54.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Lanteri V, Farronato G, Lanteri C, Caravita R, Cossellu G. The efficacy of orthodontic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Quintessence Int. 2018;49(7):581–7.PubMed Lanteri V, Farronato G, Lanteri C, Caravita R, Cossellu G. The efficacy of orthodontic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Quintessence Int. 2018;49(7):581–7.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Duncan LO, Piedade L, Lekic M, Cunha RS, Wiltshire WA. Changes in mandibular incisor position and arch form resulting from Invisalign correction of the crowded dentition treated nonextraction. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(4):577–83.CrossRef Duncan LO, Piedade L, Lekic M, Cunha RS, Wiltshire WA. Changes in mandibular incisor position and arch form resulting from Invisalign correction of the crowded dentition treated nonextraction. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(4):577–83.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K. Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija. 2014;16(1):19–24.PubMed Lapenaite E, Lopatiene K. Interproximal enamel reduction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Stomatologija. 2014;16(1):19–24.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135(1):27–35.CrossRef Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135(1):27–35.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Livas C, Jongsma AC, Ren Y. Enamel reduction techniques in orthodontics: a literature review. Open Dent J. 2013;7:146–51.CrossRef Livas C, Jongsma AC, Ren Y. Enamel reduction techniques in orthodontics: a literature review. Open Dent J. 2013;7:146–51.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hellak A, Schmidt N, Schauseil M, Stein S, Drechsler T, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Influence on interradicular bone volume of Invisalign treatment for adult crowding with interproximal enamel reduction: a retrospective three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):103.CrossRef Hellak A, Schmidt N, Schauseil M, Stein S, Drechsler T, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Influence on interradicular bone volume of Invisalign treatment for adult crowding with interproximal enamel reduction: a retrospective three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):103.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Allais D, Melsen B. Does labial movement of lower incisors influence the level of the gingival margin? A case–control study of adult orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(4):343–52.CrossRef Allais D, Melsen B. Does labial movement of lower incisors influence the level of the gingival margin? A case–control study of adult orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(4):343–52.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Melsen B, Allais D. Factors of importance for the development of dehiscences during labial movement of mandibular incisors: a retrospective study of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;127(5):552–61.CrossRef Melsen B, Allais D. Factors of importance for the development of dehiscences during labial movement of mandibular incisors: a retrospective study of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;127(5):552–61.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gazzani F, Lione R, Pavoni C, Mampieri G, Cozza P. Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):247.CrossRef Gazzani F, Lione R, Pavoni C, Mampieri G, Cozza P. Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):247.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):28.CrossRef De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):28.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Zhong M, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Zellmann M, Zellmann S, Radlanski RJ. Clinical evaluation of a new technique for interdental enamel reduction. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61:432–9.CrossRef Zhong M, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Zellmann M, Zellmann S, Radlanski RJ. Clinical evaluation of a new technique for interdental enamel reduction. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61:432–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Danesh G, Hellak A, Lippold C, Ziebura T, Schafer E. Enamel surfaces following interproximal reduction with different methods. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(6):1004–10.CrossRef Danesh G, Hellak A, Lippold C, Ziebura T, Schafer E. Enamel surfaces following interproximal reduction with different methods. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(6):1004–10.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Johner AM, Pandis N, Dudic A, Kiliaridis S. Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;143(4 Suppl):S168–72.CrossRef Johner AM, Pandis N, Dudic A, Kiliaridis S. Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: how precisely can we strip teeth? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;143(4 Suppl):S168–72.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Springate SD. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg’s formula. Euro J Orthod. 2012;34:158–63.CrossRef Springate SD. The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: a comparative study of Dahlberg’s formula. Euro J Orthod. 2012;34:158–63.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Glazer B. The Insider's Guide to Invisalign Treatment: A Step-By-step Guide to Assist You with Your ClinCheck Treatment Plans. 3L Publishing, 2017. Glazer B. The Insider's Guide to Invisalign Treatment: A Step-By-step Guide to Assist You with Your ClinCheck Treatment Plans. 3L Publishing, 2017.
18.
go back to reference Pindoria J, Fleming PS, Sharma PK. Inter-proximal enamel reduction in contemporary orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2016;221(12):757–63.CrossRef Pindoria J, Fleming PS, Sharma PK. Inter-proximal enamel reduction in contemporary orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2016;221(12):757–63.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Piacentini C, Sfondrini G. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping. AJODO. 1996;109:57–63. Piacentini C, Sfondrini G. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping. AJODO. 1996;109:57–63.
20.
go back to reference Kaaouara Y, Mohind HB, Azaroual MF, Zaoui F, Bahije L, Benyahia H. In vivo enamel stripping: a macroscopic and microscopic analytical study. Int Orthod. 2019;17(2):235–42.CrossRef Kaaouara Y, Mohind HB, Azaroual MF, Zaoui F, Bahije L, Benyahia H. In vivo enamel stripping: a macroscopic and microscopic analytical study. Int Orthod. 2019;17(2):235–42.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Lione R, Gazzani F, Pavoni C, Guarino S, Tagliaferri V, Cozza P. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(3):455–9.CrossRef Lione R, Gazzani F, Pavoni C, Guarino S, Tagliaferri V, Cozza P. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of diamond-coated strips. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(3):455–9.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hein C, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schillai G. The enamel surface quality after interproximal stripping—a scanning electron microscopic assessment of different polishing procedures. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1990;51:327–35.CrossRef Hein C, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schillai G. The enamel surface quality after interproximal stripping—a scanning electron microscopic assessment of different polishing procedures. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1990;51:327–35.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Livas C, Baumann T, Flury S, Pandis N. Quantitative evaluation of the progressive wear of powered interproximal reduction systems after repeated use: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2020;81(1):22–9.CrossRef Livas C, Baumann T, Flury S, Pandis N. Quantitative evaluation of the progressive wear of powered interproximal reduction systems after repeated use: an in vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 2020;81(1):22–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis
Authors
Giuseppina Laganà
Arianna Malara
Roberta Lione
Carlotta Danesi
Simonetta Meuli
Paola Cozza
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Aligner
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01487-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Oral Health 1/2021 Go to the issue