Effectiveness of Fully Customized Lingual Orthodontic Treatment: A Retrospective Pilot Study

Palone, Mario; Scuro, Martina; Albertini, Paolo; Lucci, Maria Antonietta; Salvatore, Renato; Cremonini, Francesca

doi:10.1590/pboci.2021.157

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORGINAL ARTICLE • Pesqui. Bras. Odontopediatria Clín. Integr. 21 (suppl 1) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2021.157 copy

Effectiveness of Fully Customized Lingual Orthodontic Treatment: A Retrospective Pilot Study

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To investigate the effectiveness of Suresmile^® lingual therapy on torque, tip, and rotations measures through digital evaluation of planning and post-treatment digital models.

Material and Methods:

A sample of 12 Caucasian adult patients (4 men; mean age 30.6 years ± 3.9 and 8 women; mean age 31.4 years ± 4.5) treated with the Suresmile^® lingual orthodontic technique was retrospectively selected, regardless of the type of malocclusion. Digital planning was performed with Suresmile^® software, while lingual therapy was accomplished with interactive self-ligating lingual brackets and customized Suresmile^® arches. First, digital models of planning and post-treatment digital models were compared using VAM software (and the discrepancies were analyzed through MANOVA and four multivariate. Then, Tukey and Bonferroni's post-hoc tests are performed.

Results:

The accuracy average values are 60.11 ± 27.67% for torque, 53.52 ± 27.37% for tip and 59.19 ± 26.42% for rotation, while for inaccuracy values are 2.72° ± 2.23° for torque, 2.98° ± 2.16°for tip and 3.58° ± 3.29° for rotation. No significant differences have been recorded evaluating different sectors of both arches.

Conclusion:

This retrospective preliminary study highlight how overcorrections, especially in the Suresmile lingual technique, should be performed during orthodontic planning. Moreover, the study gets bases for further, more structured future studies that should involve larger and more homogeneous samples.

Keywords:
Dental Occlusion; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Esthetics, Dental

Patient No.	Gender			Measurements
		Skeletal		Dental Features	Facial Profile
		Sagittal	Features
1	Male	Class I	Hypodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Straight
2	Female	Class II	Hyperdivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Convex
3	Female	Class III	Hypodivergent	Minimal Crowding on Both Arches	Concave
4	Female	Class II	Mesodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Slight Convex
5	Male	Class I	Mesodivergent	Diastemas on Both Arches	Straight
6	Female	Class III	Mesodivergent	Minimal Crowding on Both Arches	Concave
7	Female	Class I	Mesodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Slight Convex
8	Male	Class I	Hypodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Slight Concave
9	Female	Class II	Mesodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Convex
10	Male	Class II	Hyperdivergent	Anterior Open-Bite	Convex
11	Female	Class I	Mesodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Straight
12	Female	Class II	Hypodivergent	Anterior Mandibular Crowding	Straight

						Accuracy (%)
Region			Torque (%)			Tip (%)			Rotation (%)
		N	Mean (%)	SD (%)	N	Mean (%)	SD (%)	N	Mean (%)	SD (%)
Maxilla	Anterior	29	53.72	28.39	29	55.23	25.44	29	66.78	24.32
	Posterior	37	59.97	26.78	45	49.33	32.18	37	57.14	27.27
Mandible	Anterior	40	67.18	27.09	40	58.98	28.67	40	54.06	25.62
	Posterior	45	59.61	28.44	37	50.55	23.23	45	58.78	28.51
Total		151	60.11%	27.67	151	53.52%	27.37	151	59.19%	26.42

						Inaccuracy (°)
Region			Torque			Tip			Rotation
		N	Mean (°)	SD (°)	N	Mean (°)	SD (°)	N	Mean (°)	SD (°)
Maxilla	Anterior	29	2.84	2.086	29	2.438	1.609	29	3.421	3.34
	Posterior	37	2.27	1.855	45	3.871	2.643	37	3.208	2.336
Mandible	Anterior	40	2.52	1.993	40	2.528	2.021	40	3.72	3.676
	Posterior	45	3.28	3.013	37	3.384	2.402	45	4.013	3.871
Total		151	2.72°	2.23	151	2.98°	2.16	151	3.58°	3.29

Test	Measures	Contrast	Diff	Pr > Diff	Statistical Significance
Tukey post hoc	Tip	MnAr vs. MxPr	9.65	0.417	Not
		MnAr vs. MnPr	8.43	0.495	Not
		MnAr vs. MxAr	3.75	0.944	Not
		MxAr vs. MxPr	5.90	0.823	Not
		MxAr vs. MnPr	4.68	0.891	Not
		MnPr vs. MxPr	1.22	0.997	Not
	Torque	MnAr vs. MxAr	13.46	0.195	Not
		MnAr vs. MnPr	7.57	0.59	Not
		MnAr vs. MxPr	7.21	0.664	Not
		MxPr vs. MxAr	6.25	0.799	Not
		MxPr vs. MnPr	0.36	1	Not
		MnPr vs. MxAr	5.89	0.808	Not
	Rotation	MxAr vs. MnAr	12.72	0.21	Not
		MxAr vs. MxPr	9.64	0.466	Not
		MxAr vs. MnPr	8.00	0.59	Not
		MnPr vs. MnAr	4.72	0.848	Not
		MnPr vs. MxPr	1.64	0.993	Not
		MxPr vs. MnAr	3.08	0.958	Not
Bonferroni post-hoc	Tip	MnAr vs. MxPr	9.65	0.13	Not
		MnAr vs. MnPr	8.43	0.16	Not
		MnAr vs. MxAr	3.75	0.58	Not
		MxAr vs. MxPr	5.90	0.39	Not
		MxAr vs. MnPr	4.68	0.48	Not
		MnPr vs. MxPr	1.22	0.84	Not
		MnAr vs. MxAr	13.46	0.05	Not
	Torque	MnAr vs. MnPr	7.57	0.21	Not
		MnAr vs. MxPr	7.21	0.26	Not
		MxPr vs. MxAr	6.25	0.36	Not
		MxPr vs. MnPr	0.36	0.95	Not
		MnPr vs. MxAr	5.89	0.37	Not
	Rotation	MxAr vs. MnAr	13.46	0.05	Not
		MxAr vs. MxPr	7.57	0.21	Not
		MxAr vs. MnPr	7.21	0.26	Not
		MnPr vs. MnAr	6.25	0.36	Not
		MnPr vs. MxPr	0.36	0.95	Not
		MxPr vs. MnAr	5.89	0.37	Not

Associação de Apoio à Pesquisa em Saúde Bucal Avenida Epitácio Pessoa, 4161 - Sala 06, Miramar, CEP: 58020-388, João Pessoa, PB - Brasil, Tel.: 55-83-98773 2150 - João Pessoa - PB - Brazil
E-mail: apesb@terra.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Mario Palone, Researcher, Department of Orthodontics, University of Ferrara, 44121, Ferrara, Italy. E-mail: mario.palone88@gmail.com