IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i11p6569-d826193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets

Author

Listed:
  • Tzu-Han Liao

    (Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan)

  • Jason Chen-Chieh Fang

    (School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan)

  • I-Kuan Wang

    (Department of Nephrology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 404, Taiwan
    College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 406, Taiwan)

  • Chiung-Shing Huang

    (Craniofacial Research Center, Department Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei 105, Taiwan)

  • Hui-Ling Chen

    (Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan)

  • Tzung-Hai Yen

    (College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
    Clinical Poison Center, Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan)

Abstract

Background. Clear aligners have become a treatment alternative to metal brackets in recent years due to the advantages of aesthetics, comfort, and oral health improvement. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the clinical characteristics and dental indices of orthodontic patients using aligners or brackets. Methods. A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021. Patients were stratified by types of treatment (Invisalign ® clear aligner ( n = 60) or metal bracket ( n = 110). Results: Patients were aged 26.1 ± 7.2 years, and most were female (75.0%). The Invisalign ® group was older than the bracket group ( p = 0.003). The skeletal relationships were mainly Class I (49.4%), followed by Class II (30.0%) and Class III (20.6%). The molar relationships were primarily Class I (38.8%), followed by Class II (37.1%) and Class III (24.1%). The decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index was 9.9 ± 6.0, including 2.1 ± 2.9 for decayed teeth, 0.5 ± 1.1 for missing teeth, and 7.3 ± 4.3 for filled teeth. There were no significant differences in the DMFT index or skeletal and molar relationships between the groups ( p > 0.05). The index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) was 56.8 ± 13.5, and the score was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group ( p = 0.002). Among the variables included in the ICON assessment, only the aesthetic variable was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group ( p < 0.001). The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle was 27.9 ± 5.1 degrees. Finally, the E-line of the lower lip was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group (1.5 ± 2.4 versus 2.8 ± 3.1, p = 0.005). Conclusions. Older patients showed a greater intention to choose Invisalign ® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. The demand for Invisalign ® aligner treatment for aesthetic reasons was substantial. A soft tissue profile with more protrusive lower lips and a greater need for orthodontic treatment was found in the bracket group.

Suggested Citation

  • Tzu-Han Liao & Jason Chen-Chieh Fang & I-Kuan Wang & Chiung-Shing Huang & Hui-Ling Chen & Tzung-Hai Yen, 2022. "Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6569-:d:826193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6569/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6569/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6569-:d:826193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.