IADR Abstract Archives
Planned IPR vs Actual IPR during Invisalign® Treatment
Objectives: To compare digitally planned interproximal reduction (IPR) in Invisalign® Clincheck® software to that of the actual clinically performed IPR based on the final three-dimensional (3D) study models. We hypothesized that the amount of planned IPR in Invisalign® Clincheck® software and the amount of actual treatment IPR measured on digital 3D models are identical.
Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 126 patients who have completed/are undergoing Invisalign® treatment were screened, with 63 patients (37 female, 26 male) requiring IPR in the Clincheck® and at least one scan available following IPR planning included. Of the 63 patients, 16 were prescribed IPR exclusively in the upper arch, 26 exclusively in the lower arch, and 21 in both arches. The amount of prescribed IPR for each tooth was extracted from the Clincheck® data. STL files representing the 3D tooth structures of the eligible patients were evaluated. These 3D models were imported into MiniMagics software. The mesiodistal widths of the maxillary and mandibular dentition from second premolar to contralateral second premolar were measured. The actual clinically performed amount of IPR was determined by calculating the difference in mesiodistal width of each tooth from pre-treatment to post-treatment (most recent model). Ten samples were evaluated individually by two evaluators to measure the inter-rater reliability.
Results: A statistically significant difference was found for the amount of planned IPR (1.84±1.21mm) in the Clincheck® software and actual IPR performed (0.88±0.9mm) based on the pre-treatment and post-treatment scans (P <0.0001). The amount of IPR planned in the lower arch (2.25±1.17mm) was significantly higher than that of the upper arch (1.35±1.07mm) (P <0.0006). Inter-rater reliability was substantial (Krippendroff alpha = 0.70).
Conclusions: The actual amount of clinically performed IPR in Invisalign® treatment is less than the prescribed Clincheck® values. This discrepancy should be considered during Clincheck® planning for more predictable treatment outcomes.
Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 126 patients who have completed/are undergoing Invisalign® treatment were screened, with 63 patients (37 female, 26 male) requiring IPR in the Clincheck® and at least one scan available following IPR planning included. Of the 63 patients, 16 were prescribed IPR exclusively in the upper arch, 26 exclusively in the lower arch, and 21 in both arches. The amount of prescribed IPR for each tooth was extracted from the Clincheck® data. STL files representing the 3D tooth structures of the eligible patients were evaluated. These 3D models were imported into MiniMagics software. The mesiodistal widths of the maxillary and mandibular dentition from second premolar to contralateral second premolar were measured. The actual clinically performed amount of IPR was determined by calculating the difference in mesiodistal width of each tooth from pre-treatment to post-treatment (most recent model). Ten samples were evaluated individually by two evaluators to measure the inter-rater reliability.
Results: A statistically significant difference was found for the amount of planned IPR (1.84±1.21mm) in the Clincheck® software and actual IPR performed (0.88±0.9mm) based on the pre-treatment and post-treatment scans (P <0.0001). The amount of IPR planned in the lower arch (2.25±1.17mm) was significantly higher than that of the upper arch (1.35±1.07mm) (P <0.0006). Inter-rater reliability was substantial (Krippendroff alpha = 0.70).
Conclusions: The actual amount of clinically performed IPR in Invisalign® treatment is less than the prescribed Clincheck® values. This discrepancy should be considered during Clincheck® planning for more predictable treatment outcomes.