Open Access

Quantitative assessment of interproximal tooth reduction performed as part of Invisalign® treatment in 10 orthodontic practices

Tony Weir
Tony Weir
, 
Arun Shailendran
Arun Shailendran
, 
Brett Kerr
Brett Kerr
 and 
Elissa Freer
Elissa Freer
   | Oct 21, 2021
Australasian Orthodontic Journal's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: research-article
Published Online: Oct 21, 2021
Page range: 176 - 186
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2021.019
© 2021 Tony Weir et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Tooth measurements supplied for the same case showing variations between different versions of ClinCheck. Left is using Old CC Pro, right is New CC Pro.
Tooth measurements supplied for the same case showing variations between different versions of ClinCheck. Left is using Old CC Pro, right is New CC Pro.

Figure 2.

Bland-Altman charts showing levels of agreement between New CC Pro, callipers, and 3D OP.
Bland-Altman charts showing levels of agreement between New CC Pro, callipers, and 3D OP.

Figure 3.

Showing pre- and post-IPR measurements from ClinCheck.
Showing pre- and post-IPR measurements from ClinCheck.

Figure 4.

Summary chart showing mean planned and achieved tooth width changes for all teeth (n = 2,474) from all 10 orthodontists combined.
Summary chart showing mean planned and achieved tooth width changes for all teeth (n = 2,474) from all 10 orthodontists combined.

Figure 5.

Showing planned and achieved tooth width changes across all groups.
Showing planned and achieved tooth width changes across all groups.

Figure 6.

Sub-groups by orthodontist and all combined.
Sub-groups by orthodontist and all combined.

Correlation matrix (n = 120) comparing both ClinCheck versions with ‘gold standard’ measurements.

Correlations
Old CC Pro New CC Pro 3D OP Callipers
Old CC Pro
  Pearson Correlation 1 0.991** 0.988** 0.988**
  Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
  N 120 120 120 120
New CC Pro
  Pearson Correlation 0.991** 1 0.997** 0.998**
  Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
  N 120 120 120 120
3d OP
  Pearson correlation 0.988** 0.997** 1 0.999**
  Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
  N 120 120 120 120
Callipers
  Pearson correlation 0.988** 0.998** 0.999** 1
  Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
  N 120 120 120 120

Reliability correlation matrix (n = 40) for comparison of Geomagic with other methods.

Method Geomagic 1 Geomagic 2 3D OP measure Callipers Old CC Pro New CC Pro
Geomagic 1 1.000 0.986 0.989 0.986 0.971 0.988
Geomagic 2 0.986 1.000 0.994 0.995 0.989 0.997
3D OP measure 0.989 0.994 1.000 0.997 0.988 0.996
Callipers 0.986 0.995 0.997 1.000 0.986 0.997
Old CC Pro 0.971 0.989 0.988 0.986 1.000 0.991
New CC Pro 0.988 0.997 0.996 0.997 0.991 1.000

Mean planned and achieved IPR (in mm) by group.

Group n Planned IPR Mean (SD) Achieved IPR Mean (SD) Mean shortfall Mean % achieved
All teeth 2,474 0.29 (0.13) 0.13 (0.16) 0.16 43.99
Maxillary 921 0.28 (0.13) 0.12 (0.17) 0.16 42.74
Mandibular 1,553 0.30 (0.13) 0.13 (0.16) 0.16 44.68
Anterior 1808 0.30 (0.13) 0.12 (0.16) 0.18 41.19
Posterior 666 0.27 (0.14) 0.14 (0.17) 0.13 52.54
Mx anterior 677 0.28 (0.13) 0.10 (0.16) 0.18 37.13
Mx posterior 244 0.27 (0.13) 0.16 (0.17) 0.11 58.82
Md anterior 1,131 0.31 (0.12) 0.13 (0.16) 0.18 43.37
Md posterior 422 0.26 (0.15) 0.13 (0.17) 0.13 48.80

Teeth in pilot study of 40 cases for which no IPR was done, to show variation of New CC Pro measurements from T1 to T2.

Descriptive statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
Planned difference 509 0.05 1.00 0.2900 0.14318
Actual difference 509 ‒0.78 1.18 0.1303 0.17169
Valid N (listwise) 509

Planned and achieved tooth width differences in pilot study of 40 cases.

Descriptive statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
Planned difference 422 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00000
Achieved difference 422 ‒0.78 0.72 0.0072 0.13918
Valid N (listwise) 422

Planned and achieved tooth width changes for all teeth (n = 2,474) from all 10 orthodontists combined.

Paired samples test
Paired differences
95% confidence interval of the difference
Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1
  Planned difference‒actual difference 0.16220 0.16101 0.00324 0.15585 0.16855 50.108 2,473 0.000

Linear regression of planned difference and shortfall in achieved difference.

Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients 95.0% confidence interval for B
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig. Lower bound Upper bound
1
  (Constant) 0.019 0.007 2.698 0.007 0.005 0.034
  Planned difference 0.493 0.023 0.400 21.689 0.000 0.448 0.537
eISSN:
2207-7480
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Medicine, Basic Medical Science, other
Journal RSS Feed