Efficacy of Invisalign attachments: A retrospective study

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of Invisalign's (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) optimized and conventional attachments on rotational and extrusive tooth movements. Methods Initial, predicted, and achieved digital dental models from 100 orthodontic patients were exported from Invisalign's ClinCheck software as stereolithography files and subsequently imported into the Slicer CMF program (version 4.7.0; http://www.slicer.org) for superimpositions on posterior teeth with no planned movement. Rotational and extrusive measurements for both optimized and conventional attachments were made on 382 teeth from the superimposition of the initial and predicted models (predicted movement) and from the superimposed initial and achieved models (achieved movement). Predicted and achieved movements were compared along with movements of teeth with optimized and conventional attachments. Results Differences between accuracies of tooth movements using optimized vs conventional attachments for both rotation and extrusion were neither statistically nor clinically significant. Mean predicted values were larger than mean achieved values for all attachment types and movements (P < 0.0001). For extrusion, the mean difference between predicted and achieved movements was clinically significant (0.40 mm and 0.62 mm for optimized and conventional attachments, respectively). Overall, the mean accuracy was 57.2%. Mean accuracy was 63.2% for rotation and 47.6% for extrusion. Interproximal reduction or spacing did not significantly affect accuracy. Conclusions Conventional attachment types may be just as effective as Invisalign's proprietary optimized attachments for rotations of canines and premolars and extrusion of incisors and canines. Clinicians should consider overcorrecting tooth movements, especially anterior tooth extrusion.