PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative evaluation of different designs of clear aligners and examine the disparities between clear aligners and fixed appliances.
METHODS: 3D digital models were created, consisting of a maxillary dentition without first premolars, maxilla, periodontal ligaments, attachments, micro-implant, 3D printed lingual retractor, brackets, archwire and clear aligner. The study involved the creation of five design models for clear aligner maxillary anterior internal retraction and one design model for fixed appliance maxillary anterior internal retraction, which were subsequently subjected to finite element analysis. These design models included: (1) Model C0 Control, (2) Model C1 Posterior Micro-implant, (3) Model C2 Anterior Micro-implant, (4) Model C3 Palatal Plate, (5) Model C4 Lingual Retractor, and (6) Model F0 Fixed Appliance.
RESULTS: In the clear aligner models, a consistent pattern of tooth movement was observed. Notably, among all tested models, the modified clear aligner Model C3 exhibited the smallest differences in sagittal displacement of the crown-root of the central incisor, vertical displacement of the central incisor, sagittal displacement of the second premolar and second molar, as well as vertical displacement of posterior teeth. However, distinct variations in tooth movement trends were observed between the clear aligner models and the fixed appliance model. Furthermore, compared to the fixed appliance model, significant increases in tooth displacement were achieved with the use of clear aligner models.
CONCLUSIONS: In the clear aligner models, the movement trend of the teeth remained consistent, but there were variations in the amount of tooth displacement. Overall, the Model C3 exhibited better torque control and provided greater protection for posterior anchorage teeth compared to the other four clear aligner models. On the other hand, the fixed appliance model provides superior anterior torque control and better protection of the posterior anchorage teeth compared to clear aligner models. The clear aligner approach and the fixed appliance approach still exhibit a disparity; nevertheless, this study offers a developmental direction and establishes a theoretical foundation for future non-invasive, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, and efficient modalities of clear aligner treatment.
METHODS: 3D digital models were created, consisting of a maxillary dentition without first premolars, maxilla, periodontal ligaments, attachments, micro-implant, 3D printed lingual retractor, brackets, archwire and clear aligner. The study involved the creation of five design models for clear aligner maxillary anterior internal retraction and one design model for fixed appliance maxillary anterior internal retraction, which were subsequently subjected to finite element analysis. These design models included: (1) Model C0 Control, (2) Model C1 Posterior Micro-implant, (3) Model C2 Anterior Micro-implant, (4) Model C3 Palatal Plate, (5) Model C4 Lingual Retractor, and (6) Model F0 Fixed Appliance.
RESULTS: In the clear aligner models, a consistent pattern of tooth movement was observed. Notably, among all tested models, the modified clear aligner Model C3 exhibited the smallest differences in sagittal displacement of the crown-root of the central incisor, vertical displacement of the central incisor, sagittal displacement of the second premolar and second molar, as well as vertical displacement of posterior teeth. However, distinct variations in tooth movement trends were observed between the clear aligner models and the fixed appliance model. Furthermore, compared to the fixed appliance model, significant increases in tooth displacement were achieved with the use of clear aligner models.
CONCLUSIONS: In the clear aligner models, the movement trend of the teeth remained consistent, but there were variations in the amount of tooth displacement. Overall, the Model C3 exhibited better torque control and provided greater protection for posterior anchorage teeth compared to the other four clear aligner models. On the other hand, the fixed appliance model provides superior anterior torque control and better protection of the posterior anchorage teeth compared to clear aligner models. The clear aligner approach and the fixed appliance approach still exhibit a disparity; nevertheless, this study offers a developmental direction and establishes a theoretical foundation for future non-invasive, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, and efficient modalities of clear aligner treatment.
摘要：
背景：这项研究的目的是对清晰矫正器的不同设计进行比较评估，并检查清晰矫正器与固定矫正器之间的差异。
方法：创建了3D数字模型，由没有第一前磨牙的上颌牙列组成，上颌骨,牙周韧带，附件,微植入物，3D打印舌侧牵开器，括号,弓丝和明确的对准。该研究涉及创建五个用于清晰矫正器上颌前内回缩的设计模型和一个用于固定矫正器上颌前内回缩的设计模型，随后进行了有限元分析。这些设计模型包括：（1）模型C0控制，(2)C1型后部微植入物,(3)C2型前微种植体,（4）C3腭板模型，(5)C4型舌状卷收器,和（6）型号F0固定设备。
结果：在清晰的对准器模型中，观察到一致的牙齿移动模式。值得注意的是,在所有测试的模型中，改良的透明矫正器模型C3显示了中切牙冠根矢状位移的最小差异，中切牙的垂直位移，第二前磨牙和第二磨牙的矢状位移，以及后牙的垂直位移。然而,在清晰矫正器模型和固定矫正器模型之间观察到牙齿移动趋势的明显差异。此外，与固定设备模型相比，使用清晰的矫正器模型实现了牙齿位移的显着增加。
结论：在清晰的对准器模型中，牙齿的运动趋势保持一致，但是牙齿位移量有变化。总的来说,与其他四种清晰的矫正器模型相比，C3模型显示出更好的扭矩控制，并为后锚固牙齿提供了更大的保护。另一方面,与清晰的矫正器模型相比，固定矫正器模型提供了优越的前扭矩控制和对后锚固牙齿的更好保护。清晰的对准器方法和固定的矫治器方法仍然表现出差异；尽管如此，这项研究提供了一个发展方向，并为未来的非侵入性，美观，舒适,和清晰的对准治疗的有效方式。
方法：创建了3D数字模型，由没有第一前磨牙的上颌牙列组成，上颌骨,牙周韧带，附件,微植入物，3D打印舌侧牵开器，括号,弓丝和明确的对准。该研究涉及创建五个用于清晰矫正器上颌前内回缩的设计模型和一个用于固定矫正器上颌前内回缩的设计模型，随后进行了有限元分析。这些设计模型包括：（1）模型C0控制，(2)C1型后部微植入物,(3)C2型前微种植体,（4）C3腭板模型，(5)C4型舌状卷收器,和（6）型号F0固定设备。
结果：在清晰的对准器模型中，观察到一致的牙齿移动模式。值得注意的是,在所有测试的模型中，改良的透明矫正器模型C3显示了中切牙冠根矢状位移的最小差异，中切牙的垂直位移，第二前磨牙和第二磨牙的矢状位移，以及后牙的垂直位移。然而,在清晰矫正器模型和固定矫正器模型之间观察到牙齿移动趋势的明显差异。此外，与固定设备模型相比，使用清晰的矫正器模型实现了牙齿位移的显着增加。
结论：在清晰的对准器模型中，牙齿的运动趋势保持一致，但是牙齿位移量有变化。总的来说,与其他四种清晰的矫正器模型相比，C3模型显示出更好的扭矩控制，并为后锚固牙齿提供了更大的保护。另一方面,与清晰的矫正器模型相比，固定矫正器模型提供了优越的前扭矩控制和对后锚固牙齿的更好保护。清晰的对准器方法和固定的矫治器方法仍然表现出差异；尽管如此，这项研究提供了一个发展方向，并为未来的非侵入性，美观，舒适,和清晰的对准治疗的有效方式。
