Changes of maxillary central incisor and alveolar bone in Class II Division 2 nonextraction treatment with a fixed appliance or clear aligner: A pilot cone-beam computed tomography study

Hongyu Chen,Luwei Liu,Minxuan Han,Yan Gu,Wei Wang,Lian Sun,Yongchu Pan,Hu Li,Zhendong Wang,Wen Sun,Wei-Bing Zhang,Hua Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.02.015
IF: 2.711
2022-01-01
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Abstract:INTRODUCTION:This retrospective clinical study investigated the clinical changes of maxillary central incisor and alveolar bone in Class II Division 2 nonextraction treatment with fixed appliances or clear aligners on the basis of cone-beam computed tomography. METHODS:Fifty-nine Chinese Han patients with similar demographic characteristics were collected from a conventional bracket group, a self-ligating bracket group, and a clear aligner group. All measurements about root resorption and alveolar bone thickness on the cone-beam computed tomography images were tested. Changes between pretreatment and posttreatment were evaluated by paired-sample t test. The variation among the 3 groups was compared by 1-way analysis of variance. RESULTS:The resistance center of the maxillary central incisor showed upward or forward movement, and the axial inclination was increased in 3 groups (P <0.0001). Root volume loss in the clear aligner group (23.68 ± 4.82 mm3) was significantly less than that in the fixed appliances group (28.24 ± 6.44 mm3 in the conventional bracket group, 28.17 ± 6.07 mm3 in the self-ligating bracket group) (P <0.05). All 3 groups showed a significant decrease in palatal alveolar bone and total bone thickness at all 3 levels at posttreatment. In contrast, labial bone thickness significantly increased except for crestal level l. Among the 3 groups, the clear aligner group had a prominent increase in labial bone thickness at the apical level (P = 0.0235). CONCLUSIONS:Clear aligner treatment for Class II Division 2 malocclusions could effectively reduce the incidence of fenestration and root resorption. Our findings will be beneficial to comprehensively understand the effectiveness of different appliances for Class II Division 2 malocclusions treatment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?