The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in case confidence, treatment management, and Invisalign® expertise between orthodontists and general dentists. A survey was mailed to 1,000 randomly selected orthodontists and general dentists, respectively, who are Invisalign® providers, and results were analyzed. The results indicated that orthodontists treated significantly more Invisalign® cases and received more Invisalign® training than general dentists (P

The purpose of this study was to examine the orthodontic patient experience with braces compared to Invisalign® by means of a large-scale Twitter sentiment analysis. A custom data collection program was created to collect tweets containing the words “braces” or “Invisalign.” A hierarchal Naïve Bayes sentiment classifier was developed to sort the tweets into one of five categories: positive, negative, neutral, advertisement, or not applicable. Among the 419,363 tweets applicable to orthodontics collected, users posted significantly more positive tweets (61%) than negative tweets (39%) (p-value = ® tweets (p-value=0.4189). In conclusion, Twitter users express more positive than negative sentiment about orthodontic treatment with no significant difference in sentiment between braces and Invisalign® tweets.

Given the recent implementation of Invisalign First for early interceptive orthodontic treatment, a limited number of orthodontists have had experience with this treatment modality and there currently are no published studies on the topic. The present study aims to use a qualitative survey to identify common themes in providers’ perceptions of Invisalign First as a new treatment option for early interceptive orthodontics. Twenty-three orthodontists in the private practice sector voluntarily participated in an open-ended survey via email. The results of the survey indicate the following common themes in regards to benefits of Invisalign First: fewer emergencies, patient comfort, patient experience, patient happiness, ability to correct multiple things at once, and arch development. Some of the commonly cited drawbacks of Invisalign First are the following: attachment bonding issues, poor retention, and cost. Overall, all participants except for two (of twenty three) will continue to offer Invisalign First in some capacity. Seventeen participants spoke favorably of the treatment modality and would recommend Invisalign First to other providers. The results of this study provide a framework from which a more robust survey can be constructed. The intent of the future study is to gather and synthesize orthodontists’ perceptions based on experience with Invisalign First in a way that readers can constructively evaluate the potential for this treatment modality in their orthodontic practices.

Objectives: Little is known about the treatment standards and expectations of Invisalign treatment outcomes between orthodontists and general practitioners (GP). The objective of this qualitative research project was to explore how orthodontists and GPs perceive Invisalign treatment outcomes, and to determine which criteria they use to judge successful treatment.   Methods: Open-ended interviews were conducted with three orthodontists and two GPs. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed by the conventional phenomenological qualitative research protocol. Each clinician selected four Invisalign cases that they treated and perceived as successful outcomes. To augment qualitative methods, quantitative data were generated to determine pre-treatment Discrepancy Index (DI) and post-treatment Objective Grading System (OGS) scores as calculated by OrthoCAD software.   Results: Independent sample T-tests showed no significant difference in total DI score (p=0.287) and total OGS score (p=0.840) between the orthodontist (n=12) and GP (n=7) cases. Orthodontists perceive incisor torque and smile esthetics as important criteria for successful Invisalign outcomes. In contrast, GPs do not. Orthodontists and GPs unanimously perceive that Class I occlusion is an important criterion for successful treatment. GPs perceive extraction cases as a challenge to obtain successful outcome with Invisalign whereas, orthodontists do not. Conclusions: Differences exist between orthodontist and GP perceptions of what constitutes successful Invisalign treatment. Currently employed standards of excellence can be found in a wide spectrum of finishes; however, they are incapable of defining the excellence of finish. Selective standards differentiate the GPs from orthodontists, but agreement exists for ambition to finish in Class I occlusion. Esthetics and torque are valued higher by the orthodontists than are by the GPs. The utility of current standards- of-care need to be questioned and redefined. / Oral Biology

No description available.

Introduction : L’inconfort causé par les appareils orthodontiques peut significativement affecter la coopération des patients dans leur traitement. La douleur, ainsi que la détérioration de la fonction (mastication, élocution) sont reconnus comme les déterminants majeurs de la coopération des patients traités par appareils amovibles. Invisalign® se positionne comme une alternative esthétique aux multiples inconforts observés lors des traitements fixes avec boîtiers. À ce jour, peu d’études ont cherché à comparer la douleur (quantitativement et qualitativement) perçue entre cette technique et celle avec boîtiers fixes sur une longue période. Objectif : L’objectif de la présente étude est d’évaluer la douleur ressentie par les patients qui suivent un traitement orthodontique avec coquilles correctrices Invisalign® et de la comparer avec celle des patients qui suivent un traitement orthodontique conventionnel avec des boîtiers fixes. Matériels et Méthodes: L’étude compte 70 patients (29 garçons, 41 filles), moyenne d’âge de 16 ans [11 à 30]. Les trois sous-groupes sont Invisalign® (n=31), boîtiers Damon (n=19) et boîtiers Speed (n=20). Les groupes avec boîtiers (Damon et Speed) sont les 2 groupes de l’étude menée au sein de la clinique d’Orthodontie de l’Université de Montréal en 2011 qui comparait la perception de la douleur durant le traitement orthodontique entre boîtiers auto-ligaturants passifs et actifs. L’étude a été organisée en 4 phases correspondant à l’insertion des 4 premiers fils pour les groupes avec boîtiers (Phase 1: 0,016" Supercable, Phase 2: 0,016" CuNiTi, Phase 3: 0,016"x0,022" CuNiTi, Phase 4: 0,019"x0,025" CuNiTi) et à l’insertion des coquilles 1, 4, 7 et 10 pour le groupe Invisalign®. À l’aide d’un questionnaire, l’étude évalue pour chaque phase l’ampleur (grâce à une échelle visuelle analogue EVA), la durée et la localisation de la douleur à 6 différents points (T1: immédiatement après l’insertion, T2: 5h après, T3: 24h après, T4: 3 jours après, T5: une semaine après, T6: 2 semaines après). Résultats: À T1Ph3 le pourcentage de patients rapportant de la douleur était plus élevé avec Damon qu’avec Invisalign® (p=0,032) (Damon=55,6% ; Invisalign®=23,3%) mais il n’y avait pas de différence avec le groupe Speed (p=0,114). Les patients avec Invisalign® rapportaient significativement moins d’irritation des tissus mous (muqueuses, gencives) que les patients avec des boîtiers. Pour les résultats des EVA, les différences étaient statistiquement significatives à 2 temps : T3Ph1 (Médiane Invisalign®=33,31, Médiane Speed=49,47; p=0,025) et T3Ph4 (Médiane Invisalign®=13,15, Médiane Damon=27,28; p=0,014). Pour la majorité des patients la douleur ne nécessitait pas la prise de médicament et il n’y avait pas de différence significative entre les groupes sur ce point. La qualité de vie était légèrement affectée lors de la première phase et moindrement pour le groupe Invisalign® que pour les groupes avec boîtiers. Pour les patients Invisalign®, la douleur atteignait son niveau le plus élevé entre 5 et 24 heures après l’insertion de la première coquille, et diminuait en intensité et en durée à chaque phase. Conclusion: La perception de la douleur lors d’un traitement orthodontique avec Invisalign® est inférieure à celle ressentie lors d’un traitement avec des boîtiers fixes. Cette méthode de traitement est donc une thérapie attirante pour les patients désirant un traitement esthétique et relativement confortable. / Introduction : The discomfort caused by the orthodontic appliances can significantly affect patients cooperation during their treatment. Pain and function deterioration (chewing, speech) are recognized as major determinants of patients cooperation treated with removable appliances. Invisalign® is positioned as an aesthetic alternative to the many discomforts observed during treatment with fixed brackets. To date, few studies have compared the pain (quantitatively and qualitatively) between this technique and fixed appliances over a long period. Objective : The objective of this study is to assess the pain experienced in the first six months with Invisalign® treatment and compare it to the pain felt during conventional orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating brackets. Methods : The study was comprised of 70 patients (29 males, 41 females), with an age mean of 15.7 (range 11 to 30). The three subgroups are Invisalign® (n = 31), Damon (n = 19) and Speed (n = 20). The two bracket groups, Damon (passive) and Speed (active), were treated in the Orthodontic Clinic at the University of Montreal in 2011, and were compared (active vs. passive self-ligating brackets) for the perception of pain during orthodontic treatment. The study was conducted in four phases corresponding to the insertion of the first 4 wires for groups with brackets (Phase 1: 0.016 " Supercable, Phase 2: 0.016" CuNiTi, Phase 3: 0.016" x 0.022" CuNiTi, and Phase 4: 0.019" x 0.025" CuNiTi) and the insertion of aligners 1, 4, 7 and 10 for the Invisalign group. Using a questionnaire, the study evaluates the pain magnitude for each phase (using a visual analogue scale VAS), the duration, and location of the pain in 6 different time points (T1: immediately after insertion, T2: 5h later, T3: 24h later, T4: 3 days later, T5: 1 week later, T6: 2 weeks later). Results: At T1Ph3 the percentage of patients reporting pain was higher with Damon than with Invisalign® (p = 0.032) (Damon = 55.6%, Invisalign® = 23.3%), but there was no difference with Speed (p = 0.114). Patients with Invisalign® reported significantly less irritation of the soft tissues (mucous membranes, gums) than patients with brackets. For the VAS results, the differences were statistically significant at 2 stages: T3Ph1 (median Invisalign® = 33.31, Median Speed = 49.47, p = 0.025) and T3Ph4 (median Invisalign® = 13.15, median Damon = 27.28, p = 0.014). For most patients, the pain does not require medication and there was no significant difference between the groups in this respect. Quality of life was slightly affected during the first phase and less for the Invisalign® group than for the bracket groups. For Invisalign® patients, pain reached its highest level between 5 and 24 hours after insertion of the first aligner, and decreased in intensity and duration at each phase. Conclusion: The pain perception during orthodontic treatment with Invisalign® is lower than the pain experienced during treatment with fixed brackets. This method of treatment is therefore an attractive therapy for patients wishing for an aesthetic and reasonably comfortable treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Alors qu’il existe aujourd'hui différents genres de traitements orthodontiques esthétiquement acceptables, les patients s'inquiètent maintenant de la durée des traitements. L'appareil AcceleDent® a été introduit sur le marché par OrthoAccel Technologies en 2009. Ce dispositif, placé entre les dents pendant 20 minutes par jour, vibre à une fréquence de 30 Hz et est préconisé pour accélérer le traitement. L’objectif primaire est d’évaluer la précision de la simulation ClinCheck® par rapport aux résultats finaux réels pour les deux groupes. L’objectif secondaire est de déterminer si le résultat final est influencé par une progression plus rapide des gouttières d’alignement. MATÉRIELS & MÉTHODES: Une étude rétrospective qui comprend 38 patients traités avec la technique Invisalign®. Le groupe expérimental, c’est-à-dire celui qui utilise l’AcceleDent®, comprend 13 patients tandis que le groupe contrôle inclut 25 patients. La sévérité de la malocclusion a été quantifiée avec le «Discrepancy Index de l’ABO». Concernant la prédiction des résultats de la simulation ClinCheck® et le résultat du traitement final, l’«Objective Grading System de l’ABO » a été utilisé pour quantifier ces derniers. Toutes les données ont été prises à partir du logiciel OrthoCAD (Cadent, Fairview, NJ). RÉSULTATS ET DISCUSSION: Il n'y a pas de différence statistiquement significative entre la malocclusion des 2 groupes. (p=0,761). Pour les résultats finaux, il existe une différence statistiquement significative. L'alignement est meilleur dans le groupe contrôle (p=0,002). Au sein de chaque groupe, la différence entre les résultats prédits et réels n’est pas statistiquement significative (p=0,056). L’utilisation de l’AcceleDent® semble donner un surplomb horizontal plus proche de celui prédit, cependant ceci n’est pas cliniquement significatif. CONCLUSION: L’utilisation de l’appareil AcceleDent® combiné à une progression plus rapide des coquilles aux sept jours influence négativement l’alignement final chez les patients traités par la technique Invisalign®. / INTRODUCTION: While there are presently many different options for aesthetic orthodontic treatment, patients are now concerned with the length of treatment. The AcceleDent® device was introduced by OrthoAccel Technologies in 2009. This device is placed between the teeth for 20 minutes a day, vibrates at a frequency of 30 Hz and is recommended to accelerate orthodontic treatment. This study’s primary objective is to evaluate the accuracy of the ClinCheck® simulation versus the actual final results. The secondary objective is to determine if the end result is influenced by the increased rate of treatment progression with the aligners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study design was used with 38 patients treated with Invisalign®. The experimental group consisted of 13 patients, while the control group included 25 patients. The severity of malocclusion was quantified with the Discrepancy Index approved by the American Board of Orthodontics. In addition, the ABO’s Objective Grading System was used to compare the prediction of the final result provided by the ClinCheck® simulation and the actual final treatment result. All data were taken from the OrthoCAD software (Cadent, Fairview, NJ). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding their initial malocclusion (p= 0.761). For the final results, there is a statistically significant difference. The alignment is better in the control group (p = 0.002). Within each group, the difference between the predicted and the actual results are not statistically significant (p = 0.056). The use of AcceleDent® seems to give an overjet similar to that which was predicted; however, this finding is not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: The use of the AcceleDent® combined with changing aligners every seven days negatively influence the final alignment in patients treated with Invisalign®.

Introduction: The objective of this retrospective longitudinal study was to assess and compare the surgical changes and stability of the maxilla, mandible, and mandibular condyle, in patients who have undergone surgery first approach (SFA) followed by conventional braces or Invisalign (Inv) treatment. Methods: Thirty patients had a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) exam taken at three timepoints: T1 (presurgery), T2 (immediately after surgery), and T3 at the completion of orthodontics treatment. After the cranial base registration, twenty-seven landmarks were located on each time point using axial, sagittal, and coronal cross-sectional views in the ITK-SNAP software. In addition, seventeen skeletal angular and linear variables were measured using the 3D Slicer software. Result: In general, both Groups had similar sugical changes (T2-T1) and stability (T3-T2). There was a statistically significant longer postsurgical orthodontic time in the Fixed Group (x̅ = five months). Skeletally, comparing T3-T2 the B point showed a statistically significant inferior position in the Fixed Group compared to the Inv Group (1.3 mm), resulting in a larger increase in mandibular plane angle in the Fixed Group (x̅ = 2.7 degrees). Conclusion: The Fixed appliances and clear aligner therapy in the surgery first approach resulted in similar skeletal changes and stability, except for the mandibular plane angle, which showed a greater increase in the Fixed Group. This result may suggest that patients with hyperdivergent skeletal pattern could benefit from aligner therapy for the postsurgical orthodontic phase.

INTRODUCTION Il existe actuellement de nombreuses options esthétiques de traitement pour corriger orthodontiquement les malocclusions dentaires. Le standard de traitement en chirurgie orthognatique est d’utiliser des boîtiers conventionnels fixes. Récemment, une nouvelle technique gagne en popularité en pratique privée : l’utilisation de coquilles d’alignement transparentes comme alternative esthétique. La littérature actuelle sur ce sujet consiste exclusivement de rapports de cas. Ainsi, il semble raisonnable d’affirmer que davantage de recherche est nécessaire sur ce sujet. OBJECTIFS L’objectif principal de cette étude rétrospective est d’évaluer la qualité des résultats obtenus à la suite de traitements combinés d’orthodontie et de chirurgie orthognatique en utilisant le système Invisalign®, en comparaison avec les boîtiers orthodontiques traditionnels. L’objectif secondaire de comparer la durée de traitement entre les deux systèmes. MATÉRIEL/MÉTHODES Quarante-neuf patients ont été recrutés en provenance de deux pratiques orthodontiques privées (24 Invisalign® / 25 contrôles de boîtiers fixes). Les deux groupes étaient initialement similaires, tel que mesuré par le Discrepancy Index de l’American Board of Orthodontics. Les résultats finaux ont été évalués en utilisant l’outil Phase III (Model Grading System) de l’American Board of Orthodontics. RÉSULTATS Les scores moyens de chaque catégorie du Model Grading System étaient supérieurs pour le groupe Invisalign® et une différence significative existait entre les groupes pour les catégories d’alignement, de contacts occlusaux, d’angulation des racines et de score total. Les durées de la préparation pré-chirurgicale et du traitement total se sont révélées plus courtes pour le groupe Invisalign® (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION Invisalign® a produit des traitements combinés d’orthodontie et de chirurgie orthognatique plus courts que les boîtiers traditionnels. Par contre, des scores du Model Grading System supérieurs ont été répertoriés lorsque comparés avec les boîtiers conventionnels, signifiant la production de résultats de qualité inférieure à la technique traditionnelle fixe. / INTRODUCTION Numerous esthetic orthodontic treatment options currently exist to correct dental malocclusions. The gold standard in orthognathic surgery is to use bonded orthodontic brackets. Recently, clear aligners have been proposed as an alternative. The current available literature on this topic consists exclusively of case reports. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that further research is needed on this topic. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this retrospective study aims to evaluate the quality of the outcomes of combined orthodontic and surgical treatments with Invisalign® when compared with conventional orthodontic treatments. The secondary objective is to compare the duration of treatment between Invisalign® and conventional brackets. MATERIAL/METHODS Forty-nine patients were recruited from two orthodontic private practices (24 Invisalign® / 25 bracket controls). Both groups were initially similar, as per the ABO Discrepancy Index. The results were assessed using the ABO Phase III method (MGS). RESULTS The MGS mean scores were consistently higher for Invisalign® and there was a significant difference between the groups regarding alignment, occlusal contacts, root angulations and total score. The duration of pre-surgical preparation and the total treatment time were shorter for the Invisalign® group (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION Invisalign® provided faster combined orthodontic and orthognathic surgery treatment, yet demonstrated inferior quality of results when compared to conventional brackets using the MGS.

No description available.