Comparative Analysis of Braces and Aligners: Long-Term Orthodontic Outcomes.

IF 0.7 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_268_24
Sayyad Aref, Preetham Ravuri, Ajay K Kubavat, Cherukupalli Sowmya, Leela Venkata Soujanya Nallamilli, Nilesh Bhanawat, Rahul Tiwari
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Braces and Aligners: Long-Term Orthodontic Outcomes.","authors":"Sayyad Aref, Preetham Ravuri, Ajay K Kubavat, Cherukupalli Sowmya, Leela Venkata Soujanya Nallamilli, Nilesh Bhanawat, Rahul Tiwari","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_268_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term results of orthodontic treatment with traditional braces and Invisalign, with a particular emphasis on treatment length, patient satisfaction, correction of malocclusion, and long-term stability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 2020 and 2022, individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center had their data analysed. Patients with mild to severe malocclusions treated with conventional braces or Invisalign between the ages of 12 and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Assessments were done on results, length of treatment, degree of malocclusion, and long-term stability. With significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05, statistical analyses comprised t-tests for treatment duration and Chi-square testing for malocclusion correction.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The mean treatment time for Invisalign was much shorter (18 months) than for conventional braces (24 months) (<i>P</i> < 0.001). With 88-90% success rates, both techniques demonstrated remarkable success rates in malocclusion treatment. Even though Invisalign was associated with a somewhat greater percentage of relapse instances, the difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, Invisalign showed a much shorter treatment period than conventional braces, yet both showed excellent malocclusion correction. The choice of modality should be based on patient satisfaction, treatment objectives, and case complexity, taking into account the trade-offs between treatment length and potential variations in long-term stability.</p>","PeriodicalId":94339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","volume":"16 Suppl 3","pages":"S2385-S2387"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426652/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_268_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term results of orthodontic treatment with traditional braces and Invisalign, with a particular emphasis on treatment length, patient satisfaction, correction of malocclusion, and long-term stability.

Methods: Between 2020 and 2022, individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center had their data analysed. Patients with mild to severe malocclusions treated with conventional braces or Invisalign between the ages of 12 and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Assessments were done on results, length of treatment, degree of malocclusion, and long-term stability. With significance set at P < 0.05, statistical analyses comprised t-tests for treatment duration and Chi-square testing for malocclusion correction.

Findings: The mean treatment time for Invisalign was much shorter (18 months) than for conventional braces (24 months) (P < 0.001). With 88-90% success rates, both techniques demonstrated remarkable success rates in malocclusion treatment. Even though Invisalign was associated with a somewhat greater percentage of relapse instances, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: In conclusion, Invisalign showed a much shorter treatment period than conventional braces, yet both showed excellent malocclusion correction. The choice of modality should be based on patient satisfaction, treatment objectives, and case complexity, taking into account the trade-offs between treatment length and potential variations in long-term stability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
矫治器和矫正器的比较分析:长期正畸效果。
研究目的这项回顾性研究的目的是评估使用传统矫治器和隐适美矫正器进行正畸治疗的长期效果,重点是治疗时间、患者满意度、错颌畸形矫正和长期稳定性:在 2020 年至 2022 年期间,对在一家三级医疗中心接受正畸治疗的患者进行了数据分析。年龄在 12 至 18 岁之间、接受过传统矫治器或隐适美矫治器治疗的轻度至重度错颌畸形患者符合纳入标准。对治疗效果、治疗时间、错颌程度和长期稳定性进行了评估。统计分析的显著性以 P < 0.05 为标准,包括治疗时间的 t 检验和错颌畸形矫正的卡方检验:隐适美矫正的平均治疗时间(18 个月)比传统矫正器(24 个月)短得多(P < 0.001)。两种技术的成功率均为 88%-90%,在错颌畸形矫治方面都取得了显著的成功。尽管隐适美矫正的复发率略高,但两者之间的差异并无统计学意义(P > 0.05):总之,隐适美矫治器的治疗周期比传统矫治器短得多,但两者都能达到很好的错合畸形矫正效果。在选择矫治方式时,应根据患者的满意度、治疗目标和病例的复杂程度,并考虑到治疗时间与长期稳定性的潜在差异之间的权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Long-Term Effects and Patient Satisfaction following TMJ Disc Replacement Surgery. Assessment of Long-Term Pulmonary Function and Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Assessment of Prosthodontic Status and Treatment Needs of Patients Visiting Dental Institutions of Punjab. Assessment of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: Retrospective Study of Clinical Presentations. Assessment of the Association between Socioeconomic Factors and Dental Health Disparities Over a Decade.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1