OBJECTIVE: The objective of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare the type of tooth movement during en masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth using labial versus lingual biocreative therapy. METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to either the labial or lingual group. En masse anterior retraction was performed using labial biocreative therapy in group A and lingual biocreative therapy in group B. Cone beam computed tomography scans were taken before and after retraction and the primary outcome was the type of tooth movement during anterior retraction. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests for comparisons within each group and independent-sample t-test for comparison of the mean treatment changes between the two groups. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to the type of tooth movement (labiolingual inclination of the central incisor; mean difference, 5.85 ± 1.85°). The canine showed significant distal tipping in the lingual group (mean difference, 6.98 ± 1.25°). The canine was significantly more intruded in the lingual group (mean difference, 1.67 ± 0.49 mm). Good anchorage control and significant soft tissue changes occurred in both groups. No serious adverse effects were detected. CONCLUSIONS With a 10-mm retraction hook, the labial biocreative technique with the reverse curve overlay provided anterior retraction with good torque control, while in the lingual group, anterior retraction occurred with controlled tipping movement with significant distal tipping and intrusion of the canine (trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT03239275]).

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predicted and achieved labiolingual inclinations of the maxillary central incisors in adult Class II division 2 malocclusions treated with clear aligners using Power Ridges® and composite attachments. Methods: This retrospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 26.5 ± 3.3 years). The patients had Class II division 2 malocclusion and were treated with non-extraction with Invisalign® clear aligners with either Power Ridges® or composite attachments to enhance the predictability of required change in labiolingual inclination for the maxillary central incisors.Before treatment, treatment prediction and final digital models were exported as stereolithography files and superimposed using the eModel 9.0 “Compare” software. The predicted and achieved labiolingual incisor inclinations were compared. Results: The mean accuracies of the achieved inclination of the central incisors were 68.3% in the Power Ridges® group and 71.6% in the attachments group. No statistically significant differences in predictability were found between the groups (P > 0.05). A low positive correlation was observed between the predicted inclination change and the average absolute difference between the predicted and achieved inclinations (r = 0.19). Conclusions Predicted labiolingual inclination is not fully achieved with clear aligners in both the Power Ridges® and attachment groups. Clinicians must take measures to counteract this limitation, specifically in Class II division 2 cases.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predicted and achieved labiolingual inclinations of the maxillary central incisors in adult Class II division 2 malocclusions treated with clear aligners using Power Ridges® and composite attachments. Methods: This retrospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 26.5 ± 3.3 years). The patients had Class II division 2 malocclusion and were treated with non-extraction with Invisalign® clear aligners with either Power Ridges® or composite attachments to enhance the predictability of required change in labiolingual inclination for the maxillary central incisors.Before treatment, treatment prediction and final digital models were exported as stereolithography files and superimposed using the eModel 9.0 “Compare” software. The predicted and achieved labiolingual incisor inclinations were compared. Results: The mean accuracies of the achieved inclination of the central incisors were 68.3% in the Power Ridges® group and 71.6% in the attachments group. No statistically significant differences in predictability were found between the groups (P > 0.05). A low positive correlation was observed between the predicted inclination change and the average absolute difference between the predicted and achieved inclinations (r = 0.19). Conclusions Predicted labiolingual inclination is not fully achieved with clear aligners in both the Power Ridges® and attachment groups. Clinicians must take measures to counteract this limitation, specifically in Class II division 2 cases.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predicted and achieved labiolingual inclinations of the maxillary central incisors in adult Class II division 2 malocclusions treated with clear aligners using Power Ridges® and composite attachments. Methods: This retrospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 26.5 ± 3.3 years). The patients had Class II division 2 malocclusion and were treated with non-extraction with Invisalign® clear aligners with either Power Ridges® or composite attachments to enhance the predictability of required change in labiolingual inclination for the maxillary central incisors.Before treatment, treatment prediction and final digital models were exported as stereolithography files and superimposed using the eModel 9.0 “Compare” software. The predicted and achieved labiolingual incisor inclinations were compared. Results: The mean accuracies of the achieved inclination of the central incisors were 68.3% in the Power Ridges® group and 71.6% in the attachments group. No statistically significant differences in predictability were found between the groups (P > 0.05). A low positive correlation was observed between the predicted inclination change and the average absolute difference between the predicted and achieved inclinations (r = 0.19). Conclusions Predicted labiolingual inclination is not fully achieved with clear aligners in both the Power Ridges® and attachment groups. Clinicians must take measures to counteract this limitation, specifically in Class II division 2 cases.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predicted and achieved labiolingual inclinations of the maxillary central incisors in adult Class II division 2 malocclusions treated with clear aligners using Power Ridges® and composite attachments. Methods: This retrospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 26.5 ± 3.3 years). The patients had Class II division 2 malocclusion and were treated with non-extraction with Invisalign® clear aligners with either Power Ridges® or composite attachments to enhance the predictability of required change in labiolingual inclination for the maxillary central incisors.Before treatment, treatment prediction and final digital models were exported as stereolithography files and superimposed using the eModel 9.0 “Compare” software. The predicted and achieved labiolingual incisor inclinations were compared. Results: The mean accuracies of the achieved inclination of the central incisors were 68.3% in the Power Ridges® group and 71.6% in the attachments group. No statistically significant differences in predictability were found between the groups (P > 0.05). A low positive correlation was observed between the predicted inclination change and the average absolute difference between the predicted and achieved inclinations (r = 0.19). Conclusions Predicted labiolingual inclination is not fully achieved with clear aligners in both the Power Ridges® and attachment groups. Clinicians must take measures to counteract this limitation, specifically in Class II division 2 cases.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the predicted and achieved labiolingual inclinations of the maxillary central incisors in adult Class II division 2 malocclusions treated with clear aligners using Power Ridges® and composite attachments. Methods: This retrospective study included 24 patients (mean age, 26.5 ± 3.3 years). The patients had Class II division 2 malocclusion and were treated with non-extraction with Invisalign® clear aligners with either Power Ridges® or composite attachments to enhance the predictability of required change in labiolingual inclination for the maxillary central incisors.Before treatment, treatment prediction and final digital models were exported as stereolithography files and superimposed using the eModel 9.0 “Compare” software. The predicted and achieved labiolingual incisor inclinations were compared. Results: The mean accuracies of the achieved inclination of the central incisors were 68.3% in the Power Ridges® group and 71.6% in the attachments group. No statistically significant differences in predictability were found between the groups (P > 0.05). A low positive correlation was observed between the predicted inclination change and the average absolute difference between the predicted and achieved inclinations (r = 0.19). Conclusions Predicted labiolingual inclination is not fully achieved with clear aligners in both the Power Ridges® and attachment groups. Clinicians must take measures to counteract this limitation, specifically in Class II division 2 cases.