Accuracy of progress assessment with clear aligners.
- Author:
Bo LI
1
;
Yimeng XU
1
;
Ruiying SHI
1
;
Yirong HU
1
;
Siying LIU
1
;
Zexu GU
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: clear aligner; model analysis; progress assessment; three-dimensional model superimposition
- MeSH: Case-Control Studies; Cuspid; Dental Arch; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Retrospective Studies; Humans
- From: West China Journal of Stomatology 2022;40(6):698-703
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of model superimposition and automatic analysis for upper and lower dentition widths in iTero Progress Assessment during the clear aligner process.
METHODS:Nineteen cases were included in this retrospective case control study. Pretreatment dental cast (T0) and post treatment dental cast after staged treatment (T1) were available for three-dimensional (3D) model superimposition. The movements of maxillary teeth in the horizontal plane (cross section) after staged treatment and the widths of upper and lower dentitions were measured by 3D model superimposition in real world and iTero Progress Assessment. The data collected from the two methods were compared.
RESULTS:The movements [Median (upper and lower quartiles)] of maxillary teeth in the horizontal plane after staged treatment were 2.31 (1.59, 3.22) and 1.79 (1.21, 3.03) mm in iTero Progress Assessment and 3D model analysis, respectively. Significant difference was observed between the two groups (P<0.05). In the measurement of upper and lower dentition width, four indicators were measured, including intercanine width upper, intermolar width upper, intercanine width lower, and intermolar width lower. Before treatment, the measurement of iTero Progress Assessment were (35.78±2.49), (56.21±2.51), (27.43±1.38), (52.26±2.91) mm, respectively, and actual measurement were (35.77±2.53), (56.17±2.47), (27.40±1.41), (52.30±2.86) mm, respectively, without significant difference (P>0.05). After stage treatment, the measurement of iTero Progress Assessment were (37.37±2.86), (57.76±2.56), (28.89±2.00), (54.16±2.19) mm, respectively, and actual measurement were (37.29±2.94), (57.71±2.63), (28.88±2.05), (54.01±2.15) mm, respectively, and there was no significant difference (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:The data from iTero Progress Assessment did not coincide with the model superimposition results with palate as reference. The accuracy of model superimposition in iTero Progress Assessment needs further investigation, whereas the arch width analysis is accurate. Therefore, iTero Progress Assessment results should be interpreted with caution by orthodontists in clinical applications.
