Doctor Scientiae - DSc / Determining arch perimeter is of importance in both a clinical setting, where it is used to determine space requirements, as well as in an epidemiological setting where it is used to describe large populations. Physical measurement of arch perimeter is time consuming and may be prone to operator errors when done on study casts and even more so in a clinical situation. The use of a simple mathematical model to predict arch perimeter, using a few measurements that can be done easily and reliably, would be of great use to the practitioner.

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

Magister Scientiae Dentium - MSc(Dent) / The aim of this study was to determine whether there are changes in the interdental arch widths and arch lengths of the mandibular and maxillary arches during nonextraction and extraction orthodontic treatment. The records of 78 patients treated by one orthodontist were used for this study. Three treatment groups were selected: a nonextraction group (Group NE), a group treated with extraction of maxillary and mandibular first premolars (Group 44), and a group treated with extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars (Group 45). The arch width measurements were measured in the inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar areas. The arch length was measured as the sum of the left and right distances from mesial anatomic contact points of the first permanent molars to the contact point of the central incisors or to the midpoint between the central incisor contacts, if spaced.Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics of the data, analysis of the correlation matrices, Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests of the changes which occurred during treatment. The intercanine widths in the mandible and maxilla increased during treatment in all three groups, with the extraction groups showing a greater increase than Group NE (p<0.05). In Group NE the mandibular arch length increased (p>0.05), while the maxillary arch length remained essentially unchanged. Both extraction groups showed decreases in arch length in the dentitions (p<0.05), with greater decreases occurring in the maxilla. The difference in arch length change between the two extraction groups was not significant (p<0.05). The inter-canine arch width increased in all three treatment groups, more so in the two extraction groups. From this it is evident that extraction treatment does not necessarily lead to narrowing of the dental arches in the canine region. The inter-second premolar arch width decreased in both extraction groups. Non-extraction treatment resulted in an increase in the inter-premolar and inter-molar arch widths. / South Africa

<p>The aim of this study was to determine whether there are changes in the interdental arch widths and arch lengths of the mandibular and maxillary arches during nonextraction and extraction orthodontic treatment. The records of 78 patients treated by one orthodontist were used for this study. Three treatment groups were selected: a nonextraction group (Group NE), a group treated with extraction of maxillary and mandibular first premolars (Group 44), and a group treated with extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars (Group 45). The arch width measurements were measured in the inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar areas. The arch length was measured as the sum of the left and right distances from mesial anatomic contact points of the first permanent molars to the contact point of the central incisors or to the midpoint between the central incisor contacts, if spaced.</p> <p>Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics of the data, analysis of the correlation matrices, Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests of the changes which occurred during treatment. The intercanine widths in the mandible and maxilla increased during treatment in all three groups, with the extraction groups showing a greater increase than Group NE (p&lt / 0.05). In Group NE the mandibular arch length increased (p&lt / 0.05), while the maxillary arch length remained essentially unchanged. Both extraction groups showed decreases in arch length in the dentitions (p&lt / 0.05), with greater decreases occurring in the maxilla. The difference in arch length change between the two extraction groups was not significant (p&gt / 0.10). The inter-canine arch width increased in all three treatment groups, more so in the two extraction groups. From this it is evident that extraction treatment does not necessarily lead to narrowing of the dental arches in the canine region. The inter-second premolar arch width decreased in both extraction groups. Non-extraction treatment resulted in an increase in the inter-premolar and inter-molar arch widths.</p>

<p>The aim of this study was to determine whether there are changes in the interdental arch widths and arch lengths of the mandibular and maxillary arches during nonextraction and extraction orthodontic treatment. The records of 78 patients treated by one orthodontist were used for this study. Three treatment groups were selected: a nonextraction group (Group NE), a group treated with extraction of maxillary and mandibular first premolars (Group 44), and a group treated with extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars (Group 45). The arch width measurements were measured in the inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar areas. The arch length was measured as the sum of the left and right distances from mesial anatomic contact points of the first permanent molars to the contact point of the central incisors or to the midpoint between the central incisor contacts, if spaced.</p> <p>Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics of the data, analysis of the correlation matrices, Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests of the changes which occurred during treatment. The intercanine widths in the mandible and maxilla increased during treatment in all three groups, with the extraction groups showing a greater increase than Group NE (p&lt / 0.05). In Group NE the mandibular arch length increased (p&lt / 0.05), while the maxillary arch length remained essentially unchanged. Both extraction groups showed decreases in arch length in the dentitions (p&lt / 0.05), with greater decreases occurring in the maxilla. The difference in arch length change between the two extraction groups was not significant (p&gt / 0.10). The inter-canine arch width increased in all three treatment groups, more so in the two extraction groups. From this it is evident that extraction treatment does not necessarily lead to narrowing of the dental arches in the canine region. The inter-second premolar arch width decreased in both extraction groups. Non-extraction treatment resulted in an increase in the inter-premolar and inter-molar arch widths.</p>