Additional Authors

Brianna Wolfe, DDS 2025; Kimberly Lozano, DDS 2025; Adriane Tran, DDS 2025; Dr. Vineet Khehra, Dr. Esha Patel, Dr. Heeyeon Suh, Dr. James Chen, & Dr. Heesoo Oh

Presentation Category

Research

Introduction/Context/Diagnosis

Objectives: This study aimed to compare 1) treatment time, 2) treatment outcome, and 3) treatment effects in regards to dental and skeletal changes of class II molar correction in growing patients between cases using Invisalign mandibular advancement (MA) and class II elastic simulation jump. Methods: 44 growing patients with Class II malocclusion were included: 17 patients in the class II elastic group and 27 in the Invisalign MA group. Molar relationships on digital casts at pre-treatment (T1) and end-of-active-treatment (T2) for each treatment group were obtained. 3Shape software was used to measure the amount of Class II correction by comparing molar relationship, overjet (OJ), and overbite (OB) at T1 and T2 respectively. Measurements were taken separately by 2 students, and averaged before data analysis. Results: The average molar correction was greater for the MA group (-3.48 ± 1.47mm) than the elastics group (-2.88 ± 1.43mm) with negative signs indicating correction to Class I. Treatment time was longer in the MA group, averaging 33.13 ± 12.91 months while the elastics group averaged 26.05 ± 12.93 months. The average overjet correction was greater for the MA group (-3.20 ± 1.83mm) than the elastics group (-2.16 ± 1.79mm). The average overbite correction was slightly greater in the MA group (-2.01 ± 1.21mm) than in the elastics group (-1.49 ± 1.0mm). Conclusions: Both mandibular advancement and class II elastic jump using clear aligner therapy successfully corrected class II malocclusion. Invisalign MA performed significantly better at correcting molar relationships, but its ability to correct overjet and overbite compared to the elastic jump method is statistically insignificant. While Invisalign MA requires longer treatment time on average, the difference is statistically insignificant. Acknowledgements: IRB #2022103 approved.

Comments/Acknowledgements

Presentation Category: Research

Location

Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA

Format

Presentation

Included in

Dentistry Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 8th, 2:15 PM May 8th, 5:00 PM

Methods of Class II Correction in Growing Patients using Clear Aligner Therapy

Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA

Objectives: This study aimed to compare 1) treatment time, 2) treatment outcome, and 3) treatment effects in regards to dental and skeletal changes of class II molar correction in growing patients between cases using Invisalign mandibular advancement (MA) and class II elastic simulation jump. Methods: 44 growing patients with Class II malocclusion were included: 17 patients in the class II elastic group and 27 in the Invisalign MA group. Molar relationships on digital casts at pre-treatment (T1) and end-of-active-treatment (T2) for each treatment group were obtained. 3Shape software was used to measure the amount of Class II correction by comparing molar relationship, overjet (OJ), and overbite (OB) at T1 and T2 respectively. Measurements were taken separately by 2 students, and averaged before data analysis. Results: The average molar correction was greater for the MA group (-3.48 ± 1.47mm) than the elastics group (-2.88 ± 1.43mm) with negative signs indicating correction to Class I. Treatment time was longer in the MA group, averaging 33.13 ± 12.91 months while the elastics group averaged 26.05 ± 12.93 months. The average overjet correction was greater for the MA group (-3.20 ± 1.83mm) than the elastics group (-2.16 ± 1.79mm). The average overbite correction was slightly greater in the MA group (-2.01 ± 1.21mm) than in the elastics group (-1.49 ± 1.0mm). Conclusions: Both mandibular advancement and class II elastic jump using clear aligner therapy successfully corrected class II malocclusion. Invisalign MA performed significantly better at correcting molar relationships, but its ability to correct overjet and overbite compared to the elastic jump method is statistically insignificant. While Invisalign MA requires longer treatment time on average, the difference is statistically insignificant. Acknowledgements: IRB #2022103 approved.

 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.