A new method assessing predicted and achieved mandibular tooth movement in adults treated with clear aligners using CBCT and individual crown superimposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a new method for quantifying the difference between predicted and achieved tooth movement with Invisalign using stable three-dimensional (3D) mandibular landmarks and dental superimposition. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before (T1) and after (T2) the first series of aligners, their corresponding digital models (ClinCheck initial of the first series as T1 and ClinCheck initial of the refinement series as T2), and the ClinCheck final model of the first series as the predicted were obtained from 5 patients treated with non-extraction Invisalign therapy. After segmentation of the mandible and its dentition, T1 and T2 CBCTs were superimposed on stable anatomic structures (Pogonion and bilateral mental foramen) along with the pre-registered ClinCheck models. The 3D prediction differences between the predicted and achieved tooth position for 70 teeth with four types (incisor, canine, premolar and molar) were measured using a combination of software. The method employed in this study was tested to be reliable and repeatable with a very high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for both intra- and inter-examiner reliability. Premolar Phi (rotation), Incisor Psi (mesiodistal angulation), and Molar Y (mesiodistal translation) showed a significant prediction difference (P < 0.05), which is also clinically relevant. The method involving CBCT and individual crown superimposition to measure the 3D positional changes in the mandibular dentition is a robust and novel one. While, our finding in terms of the predictability of Invisalign treatment in the mandibular dentition mainly served as a crude, cursory examination, which warrants further and more rigorous investigations. With this novel methodology, it is possible to measure any amount of 3D tooth position difference in the mandibular dentition either between the simulated and the actual or with treatment and/or growth. Deliberate use of overcorrection of which specific type of tooth movement with clear aligner treatment and to what extent, might be possible with future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".