Search

ABSTRACT: Background: Orthodontic treatment in adults has gained popularity with the advent of clear aligners as an alternative to conventional braces. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 adult patients requiring orthodontic treatment were enrolled in this study and divided into two groups: 50 patients were treated with clear aligners (Group A) and 50 with conventional braces (Group B). The treatment duration, number of visits, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The primary outcome measured was the alignment of teeth, assessed using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index at baseline and after 12 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes included the duration of treatment and patient-reported discomfort. Results: After 12 months of treatment, Group A (clear aligners) showed a 75% reduction in the PAR index, while Group B (conventional braces) showed an 80% reduction. The average treatment duration was 14.5 months for Group A and 16.2 months for Group B. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group A, with 85% of patients reporting high satisfaction compared to 65% in Group B. Discomfort levels were lower in Group A, with a mean score of 2.3 on a 10-point scale, compared to 5.6 in Group B. Conclusion: Clear aligners and conventional braces are both effective in achieving desired orthodontic outcomes in adults. However, clear aligners offer a shorter treatment duration, lower discomfort levels, and higher patient satisfaction, making them a preferable option for adult orthodontic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.)

OBJECTIVE: To assess the gingival parameters in the clear aligner treatment versus the three other types of brackets, i.e., conventional metal, conventional ceramic, and metal self-ligating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients coming for regular appointments undergoing orthodontic treatment were included. They were further divided into four groups with 20 patients in each: Group one underwent conventional brackets (CB) treatment; Group two had conventional ceramic brackets (CCB); Group three was treated with self-ligating (SL) brackets; Group four underwent with clear aligner (CA) treatment. Inclusion criteria were any patient with a minimum age of 18 years having Class II, Class III skeletal relationship, undergoing orthodontic treatment for at least 6 months with fixed orthodontic appliances (FOA) on both arches. While smokers, pregnant, diabetics, or those taking medication affecting gingival health or having cardiovascular diseases were excluded. Also excluded were patients who used antiseptic solutions or mouthwash during the past 6 months, underwent any periodontal treatments in the past 6 months, or who had fixed bridges and crowns or extensive restorations close to the gingival margins. Seven indices, namely plaque index, gingival index, gingival bleeding index, sulcus bleeding index, papillary bleeding index, basic periodontal examination index, and bleeding on probing index, were recorded for all groups. RESULTS: Mean age for Group 1 with CB was 26.65 ± 5.15 years, whereas it was 27.65 ± 8.15 years for Group 2 with CCB, and 26.85 ± 5.19 for Group 3 with SB. Group-4 with CA treatment had a mean age of 26.85 ± 4.83 years. Multivariate analysis and a Bonferroni correction was performed (P = 0.008). CA treatment has better periodontal parameter values compared with the CB and the CCB groups, and no significance difference with the SL brackets group. CONCLUSION: CA treatment has better periodontal indices levels compared to other types of orthodontic treatments such as CB and the CCB groups; no significant difference with the SL brackets group. Importance should be given to oral hygiene instructions before, during, and after the treatment.

Objective: To assess the gingival parameters in the clear aligner treatment versus the three other types of brackets, i.e., conventional metal, conventional ceramic, and metal self-ligating., Materials and Methods: Eighty patients coming for regular appointments undergoing orthodontic treatment were included. They were further divided into four groups with 20 patients in each: Group one underwent conventional brackets (CB) treatment; Group two had conventional ceramic brackets (CCB); Group three was treated with self-ligating (SL) brackets; Group four underwent with clear aligner (CA) treatment. Inclusion criteria were any patient with a minimum age of 18 years having Class II, Class III skeletal relationship, undergoing orthodontic treatment for at least 6 months with fixed orthodontic appliances (FOA) on both arches. While smokers, pregnant, diabetics, or those taking medication affecting gingival health or having cardiovascular diseases were excluded. Also excluded were patients who used antiseptic solutions or mouthwash during the past 6 months, underwent any periodontal treatments in the past 6 months, or who had fixed bridges and crowns or extensive restorations close to the gingival margins. Seven indices, namely plaque index, gingival index, gingival bleeding index, sulcus bleeding index, papillary bleeding index, basic periodontal examination index, and bleeding on probing index, were recorded for all groups., Results: Mean age for Group 1 with CB was 26.65 ± 5.15 years, whereas it was 27.65 ± 8.15 years for Group 2 with CCB, and 26.85 ± 5.19 for Group 3 with SB. Group-4 with CA treatment had a mean age of 26.85 ± 4.83 years. Multivariate analysis and a Bonferroni correction was performed ( P = 0.008). CA treatment has better periodontal parameter values compared with the CB and the CCB groups, and no significance difference with the SL brackets group., Conclusion: CA treatment has better periodontal indices levels compared to other types of orthodontic treatments such as CB and the CCB groups; no significant difference with the SL brackets group. Importance should be given to oral hygiene instructions before, during, and after the treatment., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Orthodontic Science.)