The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of orthodontic treatment using the Invisalign® system. Particularly, we analyzed the influence of auxiliaries (Attachment/Power Ridge) as well as the staging (movement per aligner) on treatment efficacy. We reviewed the tooth movements of 30 consecutive patients who required orthodontic treatment with Invisalign®. In all patients, one of the following tooth movements was performed: (1) Incisor Torque >10°, (2) Premolar derotation >10° (3) Molar distalization >1.5 mm. The groups (1)-(3) were subdivided: in the first subgroup (a) the movements were supported with the use of an attachment, while in the subgroup (b) no auxiliaries were used (except incisor torque, in which Power Ridges were used). All tooth movements were performed in a split-mouth design. To analyze the clinical efficacy, pre-treatment and final plaster cast models were laser-scanned and the achieved tooth movement was determined by way of a surface/surface matching algorithm. The results were compared with the amount of tooth movement predicted by ClinCheck®. The overall mean efficacy was 59% (SD = 0.2). The mean accuracy for upper incisor torque was 42% (SD = 0.2). Premolar derotation showed the lowest accuracy with approximately 40% (SD = 0.3). Distalization of an upper molar was the most effective movement, with efficacy approximately 87% (SD = 0.2). Incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization can be performed using Invisalign® aligners. The staging (movement/aligner) and the total amount of planned movement have an significant impact on treatment efficacy.

Background: The attainment of precise posterior occlusion alignment necessitates a deeper understanding of the clinical efficacy of aligner therapy. This study aims to determine whether the treatment goals defined in the virtual planning of aligner therapy are effectively implemented in clinical practice, with a particular focus on the influence of distalization distances on potential vertical side effects. Methods: In this retrospective, non-interventional investigation, a cohort of 20 individuals undergoing Invisalign^® treatment was examined. Pre- and post-treatment maxillary clinical and ClinCheck^® casts were superimposed utilizing a surface–surface matching algorithm on palatal folds, median palatine raphe, and unmoved teeth as the stable references. The effectivity of planned versus clinical movements was evaluated. Groupings were based on distalization distances, planned vertical movements, and Class II elastic prescription. Statistics were performed with a two-sample t-test and p-value < 0.05. Results: Clinically achieved distalization was significantly lower than virtually planned distalization, regardless of additional vertical movements, where a lack of implementation was contingent upon the extent of distalization, with no mitigating effects observed with the application of Class II elastics. Intriguingly, no adverse vertical side effects were noted; however, the intended intrusions or extrusions, as per the therapeutic plans, remained unattainable regardless of the magnitude of distalization. Conclusions: These findings underscore the imperative for future investigations to delve deeper into the intricacies surrounding translational mesio-distal and vertical movements, thereby enhancing predictability within orthodontic practice. To facilitate successful clinical implementation of vertical and translational movements via aligners, the incorporation of sliders emerges as a promising strategy for bolstering anchorage reinforcement.

Objectives: Aligners are an effective and esthetic orthodontic treatment option for permanent and mixed dentition. There are only a few studies dealing with the effectiveness of orovestibular tooth movement using aligners and applying adequate examination methods. In the present retrospective study, the aligner efficiency of orovestibular movements for the entire dentition was systematically evaluated using 3D superimposition, taking into account the influence of jaw, tooth type and Invisalign^® system. Methods: Group 1 (n = 18 adults, Invisalign^®) and Group 2 (n = 17 adolescents, Invisalign^® Teen) were treated with Invisalign^® Ex30 aligner material and Invisalign^® specific auxiliary means. In this non-interventional retrospective study, pre- and post-treatment maxillary and mandibular plaster cast models were scanned and superimposed with ClinChecks^® via Surface–Surface Matching Algorithm on unmoved teeth providing stable references. Effectivity of planned versus clinically realized movements was evaluated for each tooth. Statistics were performed with a t-test and Bonferroni–Holm correction (α = 0.05). Results: Orovestibular movement efficiency was excellent without statistical significance regarding jaw, tooth type or Invisalign^® system. Mandibular translational tooth movements were highly effective, and outstanding for premolars (91–98%). Maxillary translational tooth movements were successful for incisors and premolars, but less effective for canines and molars. Almost all teeth were moderately or very effectively corrected by crown tipping, performing better for mandibular (70–92%) than maxillary (22–31%) canines as much as for adolescent upper front teeth (81–85%) and lower canines (92%). Conclusions: Aligners are able to effectively implement translational orovestibular movements, supported by tilting the crowns for even more efficient implementation of the movements. This phenomenon was observed in our studies for all teeth in both jaws, regardless of the Invisalign^® system used. Treatment planning should nevertheless take into account the individual patient parameters with regard to the movements to be performed in order to make the aligner therapy as successful as possible in terms of realizing the desired therapeutic goal.