Highlights
- •Different software programs use different algorithms.
- •Different algorithms provide different outcomes.
- •Different software programs for virtual setup do not provide the same outcomes using the same numbers for tooth movement.
ABSTRACT
Background
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the same amount of tooth movement
among four different virtual setup software programs.
Methods
This retrospective study included 32 patients who underwent Invisalign treatment.
Patients’ initial stereolithography (STL) files were imported to three different software
programs (SureSmile Aligner [Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC], Ortho Insight 3D [Motion
View software, Chattanooga, TN], and Ortho Analyzer [3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark]).
After virtually moving teeth based on the numbers from ClinCheck Pro (Align Technology,
Inc., Santa Clara, CA) tooth movement tables, final STL files were exported from all
four software programs. ClinCheck Pro final STL files were used as references, while
final STL files from the other software programs were used as targets. Superimpositions
were performed between references and target STL files using Geomagic Control X software
(3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC), and color-coded maps were obtained to illustrate potential
differences.
Results
Intraclass correlation coefficient showed a high degree of reliability for repeated
methodology (0.995–0.997). The differences among absolute averages (Abs Avg.), averages
of positive values (+Avg.), and negative values (−Avg.) for both upper and lower models
were significant among all software programs (ClinCheck Pro, SureSmile Aligner, Ortho
Insight 3D, and Ortho Analyzer), for both upper and lower STL files, the smallest
difference was found between ClinCheck Pro and SureSmile Aligner with a median of
(0.03, 0.31, −0.19) mm for upper and (0.02, 0.29, −0.17) mm for lower STL files (Abs
Avg., +Avg. and −Avg.), respectively. The biggest difference was found to be between
ClinCheck Pro and Ortho Analyzer with a median of (0.05, 0.46, −0.45) mm for upper
and (0.06, 0.48, −0.40) mm for lower STL files. There were no significant differences
in the number of aligners per patient.
Conclusions
Final outcomes of the same amount of tooth movement in four different software programs
differed significantly. The number of aligners per patient remained unchanged.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of the World Federation of OrthodontistsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Coordinating the predetermined pattern and tooth positioner with conventional treatment.Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1946; 32: 285-293
- Computer-aided design related to the engineering design process.MIT Press Electronic Systems Laboratory, Cambridge1960
- Computerized diagnostic setups and simulations.Angle Orthod. 1970; 40: 28-36
- A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with Invisalign®.Korean J Orthod. 2019; 49: 140-149
- A perspective in accelerated orthodontics with aligner treatment Seminars in Orthodontics.Elsevier, Amsterdam2017 (23)
- The Invisalign system in adult orthodontics: mild crowding and space closure cases.J Clin Orthod. 2000; 34: 203-212
- Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128: 292-298
- How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135: 27-35
- The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: a systematic review.J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136: 1724-1729
- Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner technique–regarding incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization.BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 68
- Esthetic orthodontic treatment using the Invisalign appliance for moderate to complex malocclusions.J Dent Educ. 2008; 72: 948-967
- Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice.J Orofac Orthop. 2016; 77: 409-419
- Anterior teeth root inclination prediction derived from digital models: a comparative study of plaster study casts and CBCT images.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e1069-e1074
- Comparing 3D tooth movement when implementing the same virtual setup on different software packages.J Clin Med. 2022; 11: 5351
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 14, 2023
Accepted:
February 27,
2023
Received in revised form:
February 27,
2023
Received:
August 10,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
Funding: Funding was through the Orthodontic Department at Case Western Reserve University.
Competing interests: Authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. None declared.
Provenance and peer review: Non-commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 World Federation of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
