Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Filters applied. Clear all
, 32 (4), 229-235
eCollection

Comparative Assessment of Clinical and Predicted Treatment Outcomes of Clear Aligner Treatment: An in Vivo Study

Affiliations

Comparative Assessment of Clinical and Predicted Treatment Outcomes of Clear Aligner Treatment: An in Vivo Study

Arisha Izhar et al. Turk J Orthod.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this clinical study was to assess the predicted software models and clinical models and to compare the stage models of both the groups so as to evaluate the efficacy of tooth movement with clear aligner.

Methods: The sample size included 10 cases with mild anterior crowding treated with aligner therapy. The predicted software models were superimposed on the clinical stereolithography (STL) models at various stages by using the MeshLab software. The predicted software models showing orthodontic tooth movement were compared with the actual movement achieved clinically.

Results: The results of the present study have shown that when a comparison was made on the basis of irregularity scores in both the groups, it was seen that the irregularity score was higher at 2.55 at T4, 1.65 at T6, and 1.0 at T8 in the clinical STL group at each stage, whereas it was 2.0 at T4, 0.90 at T6, and 0.25 at T8 in the software model group. In addition, in comparing the mean accuracy of these three stages, the analysis of data showed that the mean accuracy is 62.5% at T4, 68.8% at T6, and 78.1% at T8.

Conclusion: The predicted software models do not accurately reflect the patient's tooth position. There is an overestimation by predicted software as compared with actual clinically achieved tooth position. There is a need of overcorrection to be built in the treatment planning stage itself and execution of the anticipated end result.

Keywords: Clear aligners; accuracy; clinical outcome; comparison; predicted outcome.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maestro 3D MDS400
Figure 2
Figure 2
MeshLab software
Figure 3
Figure 3
Measuring tool software in MeshLab
Figure 4
Figure 4
Clinical models, software models, and their superimposition at T0
Figure 5
Figure 5
Clinical models, software models, and their superimposition at T4
Figure 6
Figure 6
Clinical models, software models, and their superimposition at T6
Figure 7
Figure 7
Clinical models, software models, and their superimposition at T8

Similar articles

See all similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback