References

Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski JP, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM. Attractiveness, acceptability and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:276 e1-e12
Jeremiah HG, Bister D, Newton JT. Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional study. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 1-7
Joffe L. Current products and practice. Invisalign®: early experience. J Orthod. 2003; 30:348-352
Eliades T, Pratsinis H, Athanasiou AE, Eliades G, Kletsas D. Cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of Invisalign appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:100-103
Boyd RL. Esthetic orthodontic treatment using the Invisalign appliance for moderate to complex malocclusions. J Dent Res. 2008;; 72:948-954
Marcuzzi E, Galassini G, Procopio O, Castaldo A, Contardo L. Surgical-Invisalign treatment of a patient with Class III malocclusion and multiple missing teeth. J Clin Orthod. 2010; 6:377-384
Brezniak N, Wasserstein A. Root resorption following treatment with Aligners – Case Report. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:1119-1124
Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:27-35
Clements KM, Bollen A-M, Huang G, King G, Hujoel P, Ma T. Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 2: Dental improvements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:502-508
Djeu G, Shelton C, Meganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128:292-298
Bollen A-M, Huang G, King G, Hujoel P, Ma T. Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 1: Ability to complete treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:496-501

Invisible orthodontics part 1: invisalign

From Volume 40, Issue 3, April 2013 | Pages 203-215

Authors

Ovais H Malik

BDS, MSc (Orth), MFDS RCS (Ed), MOrth RCS (Eng), MOrth RCS (Ed), FDS (Orth), RCS (Eng)

Consultant in Orthodontics, University of Manchester Dental Hospital, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Manchester and Northenden House Orthodontics, Sale Road, Manchester, M23 0DF

Articles by Ovais H Malik

Ailbhe McMullin

BDentSc(Hons), MFDS RCS(Ire)

Specialist Registrar in Orthodontics, University of Manchester Dental Hospital, Sale Road, Manchester, M23 0DF

Articles by Ailbhe McMullin

David T Waring

BChD, MDentSci, MFDS RCS(Eng), MOrth RCS(Ed), FDS(Orth) RCS(Ed)

Consultant in Orthodontics, University of Manchester Dental Hospital and Northenden House Orthodontics, Sale Road, Manchester, M23 0DF, UK

Articles by David T Waring

Abstract

This paper discusses the invisible orthodontic treatment modalities of Invisalign aligners, lingual appliances and aesthetic brackets. The first part of this three-part series will discuss Invisalign aligner treatment. The second part will discuss lingual appliance treatment and the third part will focus on aesthetic brackets. The benefits and drawbacks of Invisalign treatment are considered in detail, including examples of treated cases and a review of the literature to date.

Clinical Relevance: Patients are increasingly requesting more aesthetic forms of orthodontic treatment. Clinicians need to be aware of the indications and limitations of such invisible therapies so that they can fully inform their patients.

Article

A recent YouGov Survey estimated that 45% of adults are unhappy with the appearance of their teeth and 20% would consider having some form of orthodontics to improve the alignment and appearance of their teeth.1 The British Lingual Orthodontic Society found in a 2009 survey that 72% of people were unaware of the option of invisible braces.2 When questioned, 90% of adults deem aesthetic appliances (Invisalign, lingual and ceramic) as attractive and acceptable, whilst only 55% viewed stainless steel bracket systems in a similar light.3 Indeed, perceived intellectual ability can be linked to appliance appearance, with those with no visible appliance or a clear aligner rated above those with steel or ceramic appliances.4

Align Technology first introduced Invisalign in 1999. To date over 58,000 dentists and orthodontists worldwide are Invisalign certified, with an estimated one million patients treated so far.5 It involves wearing a series of customized clear plastic aligners (Figure 1) for a minimum of 20 hours per day. They are changed on a two-weekly basis. It is estimated that each aligner moves a tooth or group of teeth by 0.25 to 0.33 mm. CAD-CAM technology is combined with virtual 3D model correction software (ClinCheck) to stage tooth movements and correction of the malocclusion (Figure 2). The ClinCheck can be used for visualization of treatment results and sharing information with patients throughout the duration of treatment. A typical course of treatment takes approximately 25 aligners but varies according to the amount and complexity of required tooth movement.6 Concern has been raised about the potential release of bisphenol A from these plastic aligners but laboratory in vitro ageing studies have ruled out any potential cytotoxicity or oestrogenicity.7

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available