The purpose of this study is to comprehensively review the relationship between malocclusion and anxiety and depression. While the physical implications of malocclusion are well documented, recent scholarship has shifted focus to examining the direct relationship between malocclusion and both anxiety and depression. It has been hypothesized that individuals with skeletal or dental malocclusion experience a range of psychological sequelae, including diminished quality of life (QoL), reduced oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), increased vulnerability and appearance-related bullying, and impaired body image. Furthermore, these factors are postulated to collectively contribute to overall mental health, with malocclusion potentially serving as a contributing etiological factor in the development of elevated levels of anxiety and depression. Contemporary scholarship has established a complex relationship between dentofacial deviations and the psychological well-being of affected individuals. Evidence shows that malocclusion may contribute to increased depression and anxiety levels in some individuals, influencing their social functioning and treatment-seeking behavior. Dentofacial disharmony has also been associated with altered self-perception, potentially impacting an individual’s OHQOL and overall quality of life. While the findings exhibit some inconsistency, a modest body of evidence indicates a possible correlation between pronounced skeletal or dental malocclusion and anxiety and depression. These adverse psychosocial impacts, in turn, contribute to an elevated risk of anxiety and depression, underscoring the far-reaching consequences of malocclusion beyond oral health. Therefore, clinicians need to consider these issues in their treatment plans, incorporating interdisciplinary approaches that address both orthodontic and psychological aspects of patient care.

Background/Objectives: A recent feature in the Invisalign^® system allowed integration of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with intraoral scans, thereby enabling visualization of the tooth roots and surrounding alveolar bone. Here, we aimed to compare differences between anatomical measurements obtained from integrated CBCT using Invisalign^® software and conventional CBCT images. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included 45 adult patients (mean age 29.53 ± 7.66 years). Alveolar bone width was measured at the crestal, mid-root, and apical levels and the root length, maxillary and mandibular outer and inner transverse widths, and symphyseal width were assessed. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Paired t-tests were used to compare the two methods, and Bland–Altman analysis was used to evaluate agreement. Results: Intra-examiner reliability demonstrated excellent agreement for all measurements (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.90). Integrated CBCT models showed greater alveolar bone width, symphyseal width, and interbuccal transverse measurements than conventional CBCT, whereas the root length and interlingual transverse widths were underestimated. Most of the differences between the two methods were statistically significant (p < 0.05), although 5 of the 12 crestal measurements did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). For most measurements, the mean absolute differences were below 0.7 mm, except for root length, which showed larger discrepancies. Bland–Altman analysis revealed good agreement between the methods, with most observations lying within the 95% limits of agreement and no evident proportional bias. Conclusions: Most measured variables showed significant differences between integrated and conventional CBCT (p < 0.05), ranging from 0.7 mm to 1.3 mm; however, at the crestal level, 5/12 measurements showed no statistically significant difference between methods (p > 0.05).