Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2024 Jan 15;28(1):95.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05499-4.

Comparison of the accuracy of three interproximal reduction methods used in clear aligner treatment

Pelinsu Güleç-Ergün  1 , Ayça Arman-Özçırpıcı  2 , Azize Atakan-Kocabalkan  2 , Nilüfer İrem Tunçer  2
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of the accuracy of three interproximal reduction methods used in clear aligner treatment

Pelinsu Güleç-Ergün et al. Clin Oral Investig. .

Abstract

Objectives: To comparatively assess 3 interproximal reduction (IPR) methods used in clear aligner treatment with regard to accuracy, and patient perception of discomfort and anxiety.

Materials and methods: A total of 42 patients, treated with the Invisalign® system, were included in this prospective trial and received one of the following IPR methods: hand-operated abrasive strips (group 1; 14 patients, 150 teeth), motor-driven 3/4 oscillating segmental discs (group 2; 14 patients, 134 teeth), or motor-driven abrasive strips (group 3; 14 patients, 133 teeth). Accuracy was evaluated using the difference between planned and executed IPR. Anxiety and discomfort levels experienced by the patients were evaluated using a questionnaire of 17 questions.

Results: The accuracy of IPR was high in groups 2 and 3; however, it was low in group 1 with the executed IPR significantly less than the planned amount. On quadrant-level, executed IPR was significantly less in the upper left quadrant in group 1, and significantly more in the upper right quadrant in group 2. The difference between planned IPR and executed IPR was significant for teeth 11, 21, 32, 33, and 43 in group 1, indicating deficiency. The average difference between planned IPR and executed IPR was 0.08 mm for group 1, 0.09 mm for group 2, and 0.1 mm for group 3. Anxiety and discomfort levels did not differ between the methods, but a negative correlation was observed between age and discomfort and anxiety levels.

Conclusions: The overall accuracy of the 2 motor-driven IPR methods was found to be better than the hand-operated system. Maxillary central incisors and mandibular canines were more prone to IPR deficiency when hand-operated abrasive strips were utilized. Patients were similarly comfortable with all 3 methods, and discomfort and anxiety levels decreased with age.

Clinical relevance: Motor-driven methods have proven to be more effective when compared to the hand-operated ones by means of precision, speed, and patient comfort. If the clinician favors a hand-operated method, it may be advised to perform slightly more IPR especially on mandibular canines and maxillary central incisors.

Keywords: Abrasive strips; Anxiety; Consistency; Oscillating discs; Patient perception; Stripping.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A Hand-operated abrasive strips; B motor-driven 3/4 oscillating segmental discs; C motor-driven abrasive strips; D interproximal gauge
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-00329-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Grünheid T, Loh C, Larson BE. How accurate is Invisalign in nonextraction cases? Are predicted tooth positions achieved? Angle Orthod. 2017;87(6):809–815. doi: 10.2319/022717-147.1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kesling HD. The philosophy of the tooth positioning appliance. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1945;31(6):297–304. doi: 10.1016/0096-6347(45)90101-3. - DOI
    1. 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 Dentofac Orthop. 2009;135(1):27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuo E, Miller RJ. Automated custom-manufacturing technology in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;123(5):578–581. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00051-9. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources