The newly emerging Clarity™ Clear Aligner System from 3M has set out to address one of the biggest pitfalls of thermoplastic aligners: accuracy of orthodontic movements. The 3M Clarity™ Clear Aligner System is unique among clear aligners because it employs a proprietary, sophisticated machine-learning algorithm to design orthodontic movement schematics. The core of the Clarity™ Aligner System is artificial intelligence, meaning that a prospective analysis of preliminary data is essential for the development and improvement of the accuracy of the algorithm. This study investigates movement and accuracy of the Clarity™ Aligner System, from a preliminary data subset from ongoing prospective, randomized clinical trials. Movement from the first trial subset is examined in terms of the following movement factors: secondary premolar-secondary premolar (5+5 in the Palmer system) arch expansion or crowding resolved, absolute rotation, absolute mesial-distal tipping, and absolute torque for both the crown and root. These movements are further examined according to specific tooth types. Both actual observational orthodontic movements and theoretical movements are designed by the Clarity™ System. The accuracy of actual movement in terms of theoretical movements is calculated; however, it is impossible to calculate the significance of these accuracies due to a complete lack of benchmark movement values for the clear aligner market. There are no benchmark values to compare to, so orthodontic movements will be critically examined for performance, and casually compared to alternative aligner systems. Identifying potential weaknesses in the Clarity™ Aligner System is imperative for maximizing its effectiveness.

Introduction: Surgically Facilitated Orthodontic Therapy (SFOT) has been utilized for years to overcome the limitations encountered with traditional orthodontic treatment of dentoalveolar and alveoloskeletal malocclusions. The procedure, which consists of full flap corticotomies and bone grafting, has many proposed benefits including increased speed and range of tooth movement. The purpose of this study is to evaluate arch expansion in patients treated with SFOT and clear aligners. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study design was used to evaluate 51 consecutive adult patients that were treatment planned for significant arch expansion with corticotomies, bone grafting, and clear aligners. 17 of the 51 patients refused the surgical procedure and served as controls. Eight transverse arch width measurements were obtained at three different time points (Initial, ClinCheck, Refinement). Five calculations were performed to determine the magnitude, predictability, and efficiency of arch expansion. Results: The difference in treatment time between the two groups was statistically significant at 5.2 months (P < .0001). On average, corticotomies reduced the length of treatment by 46% and increased the rate of expansion 2.4x. Patients that received SFOT achieved a greater magnitude (+28%) of expansion at a significantly higher rate (P< 0.002) than controls for all eight interarch measurements. The SFOT group displayed higher predictability (% goal achieved) and a smaller difference between predicted and achieved tooth movements for all measures obtained. The mean age for the entire sample was 42.81 (+12.51 years). Conclusion: Arch expansion with corticotomy-assisted clear aligner therapy is significantly more effective, efficient, and predictable than with clear aligners alone. The predictability of expansion with aligners appears to have a higher range than initially thought, even in patients that do not receive corticotomies.

Introduction: Orthodontic and orthopedic expansion is necessary to create space to resolve crowding due to arch deficiency or tooth size discrepancy. The Invisalign First clear aligner appliance as a modality for early interceptive orthodontic treatment has become incorporated into orthodontic practices in very recent years. The present study aims to investigate the magnitude of expansion of the Invisalign First clear aligner appliance compared to a Schwartz removable expander in patients with mixed dentition. Additionally, the study aims to compare the efficacy and predictability of Invisalign First clear aligners in this population. Materials & Methods: In this retrospective study, a sample was collected from a single orthodontist practitioner. The sample consisted of 34 patients, 16 patients treated with Invisalign First clear aligners only (Group1) and 19 patients treated with a Schwartz removable appliance and Invisalign First clear aligners (Group 2). Intraoral scans of four timepoints, initial (T1), post-expansion for Group 2 only (T1Exp), first refinement (T2), and final (T3), and planned Clincheck goal (P) model from Clincheck software were imported to Align Technology’s digital measure program (Quantify©). Arch widths and molar inclinations were measured at each timepoint and the changes between timepoints were calculated. Predictability of arch expansion was calculated as T13 (change between initial and final) divided by the Planned dimension multiplied by one hundred. A two sample t-test was used to assess differences in the changes in arch widths and predictability of expansion between two groups. Results: There were statistically significant differences found in the magnitude of expansion and predictability of arch expansion between two groups. Group 2 showed a greater amount of expansion and predictability. Group 1 showed about 50-60% of the planned expansion at the end of treatment. In regards to magnitude of expansion when comparing the two groups, the efficacy predictability of transverse dimensional changes were significantly greater in the Group 2 compared to Group 1, 83% vs 56% (p = 0.001), respectively. The changes in inclination were similar in both groups, with no statistically significant differences.Conclusions: There is a significantly greater amount of expansion and greater predictability with the Schwartz removable appliance compared to the Invisalign First clear aligner appliance in the mixed dentition. The predictability of Invisalign First was 56% and indicates a significant overcorrection of arch expansion is required at the virtual treatment planning stage in Clincheck in order to obtain the arch expansion that was planned