Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-01-2021 | Aligner | Original Article

Evaluation of effectiveness and stability of aligner treatments using the Peer Assessment Rating Index

Authors: Dr. Isabelle Graf, Carolin Puppe, Jörg Schwarze, Karolin Höfer, Hildegard Christ, Bert Braumann

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Aims

The aims of this study were to measure treatment effects of aligner treatments in adult patients directly after treatment and the stability of these effects after a short-term retention period using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index.

Methods

This double-center trial consecutively screened 98 adult patients of whom 33 patients were treated according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study sample was shown to be representative for adult orthodontic reality with regard to gender, age, and distribution of malocclusion type. Malocclusion severity was rated by using the PAR Index measured at baseline (T0), after finishing orthodontic treatment with Invisalign® (T1; Align Technology Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) and after a mean retention period of 10 months (T2). Furthermore, to better understand the observed treatment modality, specific treatment characteristics were recorded and analyzed.

Results

The average PAR score at T0 was 22.18 (standard deviation [SD] ± 8.68). Posttreatment PAR score was 4.64 (SD ± 4.23) at T1 and was stable after a retention period of 10.07 months at T2 (SD ± 126.80 days; PAR 4.36, SD ± 3.93). All of the study cases showed a significant reduction of the total PAR score between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001), but no further difference between T1 and T2 (PAR 4.64 vs. 4.36). Cases were either classified ‘improved’ (n = 23) or ‘greatly improved’ (n = 10); no case was classified into the third PAR Index category ‘worse or no different’. On average, 72 aligners (SD ± 22) with 12 attachments per treatment (SD ± 4) were used to align teeth. Six patients needed a case refinement with a mean of 23 (SD ± 8) further aligners. The maximum number of needed ClinCheck® (Align Technology Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) treatment plan revisions was 18 (mean 7, SD ± 4).

Conclusion

The detected improvement rate indicated a good standard of orthodontic treatment using aligners. Treatment effects were stable throughout a short-term retention period using a specific retention protocol. Effectiveness and stability were equally achieved in mild, moderate, and rather severe cases within this consecutive sample. A critical focus should be placed on accurate treatment planning in order to make tooth movements predictable, realistic, and stable.

Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr. et al (2004) The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125(3):270–278PubMedCrossRef

Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG et al (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114(5):589–599PubMedCrossRef

Clements KM, Bollen AM, Huang G et al (2003) Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 2: Dental improvements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124(5):502–508PubMedCrossRef

DeGuzman L, Bahiraei D, Vig KW et al (1995) The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107(2):172–176PubMedCrossRef

Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A (2005) Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128(3):292–298 (discussion 98)PubMedCrossRef

Grunheid T, Gaalaas S, Hamdan H et al (2016) Effect of clear aligner therapy on the buccolingual inclination of mandibular canines and the intercanine distance. Angle Orthod 86(1):10–16PubMedCrossRef

Gu J, Tang JS, Skulski B et al (2017) Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(2):259–266PubMedCrossRef

Hennessy J, Garvey T, Al-Awadhi EA (2016) A randomized clinical trial comparing mandibular incisor proclination produced by fixed labial appliances and clear aligners. Angle Orthod 86(5):706–712PubMedCrossRef

Hensel E, Born G, Korber V et al (2003) Prevalence of defined symptoms of malocclusion among probands enrolled in the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) in the age group from 20 to 49 years. J Orofac Orthop 64(3):157–166PubMedCrossRef

10.

Houle JP, Piedade L, Todescan R et al (2017) The predictability of transverse changes with Invisalign. Angle Orthod 87(1):19–24PubMedCrossRef

11.

Khosravi R, Cohanim B, Hujoel P et al (2017) Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 151(4):691–699.e2PubMedCrossRef

12.

Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E et al (2009) How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135(1):27–35PubMedCrossRef

13.

Krooks L, Pirttiniemi P, Kanavakis G et al (2016) Prevalence of malocclusion traits and orthodontic treatment in a Finnish adult population. Acta Odontol Scand 74(5):362–367PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kuncio D, Maganzini A, Shelton C et al (2007) Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Angle Orthod 77(5):864–869PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lanteri V, Farronato G, Lanteri C et al (2018) The efficacy of orthodontic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Quintessence Int 49(7):581–587PubMed

16.

Little RM (1975) The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 68(5):554–563PubMedCrossRef

17.

Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B et al (2016) Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002283.pub4PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Pacheco-Pereira C, Abreu LG, Dick BD et al (2016) Patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 86(3):495–508PubMedCrossRef

19.

Papadimitriou A, Mousoulea S, Gkantidis N et al (2018) Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign(R) orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Prog Orthod 19(1):37PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD et al (1992) The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 14(2):125–139PubMedCrossRef

21.

Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT et al (1992) The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 14(3):180–187PubMedCrossRef

22.

Schaefer I, Braumann B (2010) Halitosis, oral health and quality of life during treatment with Invisalign and the effect of a low-dose chlorhexidine solution. J Orofac Orthop 71(6):430–441PubMedCrossRef

23.

Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD et al (1991) Quality control in orthodontics: indices of treatment need and treatment standards. British Dent J 170(3):107–112CrossRef

24.

Silvola AS, Rusanen J, Tolvanen M et al (2012) Occlusal characteristics and quality of life before and after treatment of severe malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 34(6):704–709PubMedCrossRef

25.

Simon M, Keilig L, Schwarze J et al (2014) Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner technique—regarding incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization. BMC Oral Health 14:68PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Solano-Mendoza B, Sonnenberg B, Solano-Reina E et al (2017) How effective is the Invisalign(R) system in expansion movement with Ex30’ aligners? Clin Oral Invest 21(5):1475–1484CrossRef

27.

Zheng M, Liu R, Ni Z et al (2017) Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 20(3):127–133PubMedCrossRef

Title: Evaluation of effectiveness and stability of aligner treatments using the Peer Assessment Rating Index
Authors: Dr. Isabelle Graf
Carolin Puppe
Jörg Schwarze
Karolin Höfer
Hildegard Christ
Bert Braumann
Publication date: 01-01-2021
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Keyword: Aligner
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00249-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of effectiveness and stability of aligner treatments using the Peer Assessment Rating Index

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Stainless steel and NiTi torque archwires and apical root resorption

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliances

Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers

Correction: Effects of isotretinoin on new bone formation after maxillary sutural expansion

Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems