ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term results of orthodontic treatment with traditional braces and Invisalign, with a particular emphasis on treatment length, patient satisfaction, correction of malocclusion, and long-term stability.
Methods:
Between 2020 and 2022, individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center had their data analysed. Patients with mild to severe malocclusions treated with conventional braces or Invisalign between the ages of 12 and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Assessments were done on results, length of treatment, degree of malocclusion, and long-term stability. With significance set at P < 0.05, statistical analyses comprised t-tests for treatment duration and Chi-square testing for malocclusion correction.
Findings:
The mean treatment time for Invisalign was much shorter (18 months) than for conventional braces (24 months) (P < 0.001). With 88–90% success rates, both techniques demonstrated remarkable success rates in malocclusion treatment. Even though Invisalign was associated with a somewhat greater percentage of relapse instances, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Invisalign showed a much shorter treatment period than conventional braces, yet both showed excellent malocclusion correction. The choice of modality should be based on patient satisfaction, treatment objectives, and case complexity, taking into account the trade-offs between treatment length and potential variations in long-term stability.
KEYWORDS: Conventional braces, correction of malocclusion, Invisalign, length of treatment, orthodontic therapy, patient satisfaction, stability over time
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontic therapy is essential for improving oral health, function, and appearance by realigning misaligned teeth. For many years, traditional braces have been a common tool in orthodontic therapy, providing efficient correction for a variety of malocclusions. But the advent of transparent aligner therapy—best known for Invisalign—has completely changed orthodontic treatment by offering a more understated and cosy substitute. Invisalign is becoming more and more popular, but concerns about its durability and long-term effectiveness in comparison to conventional braces still exist.
By performing a thorough comparison of the long-term results of orthodontic treatment with Invisalign vs conventional braces, this study seeks to fill this vacuum in the literature. This study aims to offer important insights into the relative benefits of these two treatment approaches by assessing variables such as treatment length, efficacy in curing malocclusion, patient satisfaction, and long-term stability.
Orthodontic professionals and patients alike must be aware of the distinctions between Invisalign and conventional braces to make well-informed treatment choices. This study intends to optimize orthodontic treatment regimens and eventually enhance patient results and satisfaction by clarifying the benefits and drawbacks of each technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data from individuals who had orthodontic treatment at a tertiary care center between 2020 and 2022—using either conventional braces or Invisalign—were examined retrospectively in this study. To gather data on long-term stability, treatment length, severity of malocclusion, treatment results, and demographics, patient records were examined. Patients with mild to severe malocclusion between the ages of 12 and 18 who had undergone orthodontic treatment with conventional braces or Invisalign met the inclusion criteria. Patients with significant malocclusions requiring surgery or those with unfinished treatment records were among the exclusion criteria. To compare the treatment outcomes between the two groups, statistical analysis was done using measures of central tendency and dispersion. The review board of the institute granted ethical approval before any data were collected.
RESULTS
Table 1’s results show that individuals treated with Invisalign needed far less time to complete their treatment than those treated with conventional braces. More specifically, the average treatment time for conventional braces was 24 months, compared to 18 months for Invisalign. The statistical significance of the difference (P < 0.001) indicates that Invisalign might potentially provide orthodontic therapy more quickly than conventional braces.
Table 1.
Comparison of Treatment Duration between Traditional Braces and Invisalign
| Treatment Modality | Mean Duration (months) | Standard Deviation | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Braces | 24 | 4 | <0.001 |
| Invisalign | 18 | 3 |
The findings in Table 2 demonstrate that high success rates were attained in treating malocclusion with both conventional braces and Invisalign. Approximately 88% of instances treated with Invisalign and 90% of cases treated with conventional braces resulted in effective corrections. But compared to the group wearing traditional braces (10%), the Invisalign group had a slightly greater percentage of relapse instances (12%). This difference indicates a trend towards somewhat greater long-term stability with conventional braces, even if it was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). All things considered, these results demonstrate how well both treatment approaches work to correct malocclusions, with Invisalign having the advantage of a shorter treatment time.
Table 2.
Comparison of Malocclusion Correction between Traditional Braces and Invisalign
| Treatment Modality | Successful Cases (%) | Relapse Cases (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Braces | 90 | 10 | <0.05 |
| Invisalign | 88 | 12 |
DISCUSSION
Patients and orthodontic experts are curious about Invisalign vs. braces. The study findings’ effects on long-term stability, patient satisfaction, treatment time, and malocclusion correction are discussed along with the field’s limitations and future potential.
Treatment Duration: The variation in treatment length between Invisalign and traditional braces is due to their tooth movement mechanics. Traditional braces allow fine tooth placement control since teeth move gradually, but treatment timeframes are longer due to the force of the brackets and wires.[1] In contrast, Invisalign gradually aligns teeth using clear aligners. It’s more discreet, enjoyable, and may take less time.[2] Invisalign’s reduced treatment time may appeal to those with social or professional responsibilities.[3]
Malocclusion Correction: Invisalign and traditional braces treated malocclusion successfully in most situations. This supports recent studies that demonstrate clear aligner and traditional braces are equally effective in mild to moderate malocclusion patients.[4] Interestingly, the Invisalign group had a slightly higher recurrence rate, albeit not statistically significant. Conventional braces increase long-term stability because brackets and wires limit tooth movement and force application.[5] Future studies should assess patient compliance, treatment technique adherence, and case complexity as predictors of Invisalign recurrence.
Treatment experience, aesthetics, comfort, and perceived efficacy all affect patient satisfaction, which is crucial to orthodontic treatment results.[6] Invisalign’s clear aligners are more comfortable and attractive than braces since they are practically invisible and may be removed for meals and dental maintenance.[7] The absence of metal brackets and wires may reduce oral irritation and discomfort associated with traditional braces, enhancing patient comfort and compliance.[8] Patient satisfaction depends on expectations, therapeutic goals, and personal preferences.[9] Patients may choose convenience and beauty over stability and medicinal efficacy. Orthodontic practitioners should consider these factors when presenting treatment options with patients to improve decision-making and patient satisfaction.
Long-Term Stability: Orthodontic treatment outcomes must be stable to prevent recurrence and maintain oral health and function.[10] Both traditional braces and Invisalign can cure malocclusion, however, treatment mechanics and force application may affect long-term stability. Traditional braces can precisely regulate tooth movement and provide steady force, which may yield more predictable and consistent outcomes in difficult malocclusions. Invisalign involves sequential aligner adjustments, which may not restrict tooth movement or prevent relapse, especially for major dental extrusions or rotations. To enhance Invisalign treatment results over time, future research should examine retention criteria, supplemental procedures, and upgraded aligners.[7,8,9,10]
Limitations
There are a few limitations to this study that should be taken into account. First off, because of erroneous or missing medical data, the retrospective approach could create bias. Additionally, the findings’ generalizability could be constrained by the sample size and demographic makeup. To produce more reliable results, future studies should make use of prospective, randomized controlled trials with bigger sample numbers and longer follow-up times.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there are effective orthodontic treatment choices available with both traditional braces and Invisalign, each having pros and cons. Traditional braces give you more control over how your teeth move and may provide better long-term stability than Invisalign, but Invisalign may also offer a quicker treatment time and improved patient comfort and aesthetics. To maximize treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction, orthodontic practitioners should take into account patient preferences, treatment goals, and case complexity when choosing the best treatment technique.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Andrews W. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972;62:296–309. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9416(72)90268-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bruni A, Abate A, Maspero C, Castroflorio T. Comparison of mechanical behavior of clear aligner and rapid palatal expander on transverse plane: An in vitro study. Bioengineering (Basel) 2024;11:103. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11020103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Orthodontic retention: A systematic review. J Orthod. 2006;33:205–12. doi: 10.1179/146531205225021624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS., 3rd 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: Results and trends. J Clin Orthod. 2008;42:625–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:881–9. doi: 10.2319/061614-436.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017;62((Suppl 1)):58–62. doi: 10.1111/adj.12480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zachrisson BU. Esthetic factors involved in anterior tooth display and the smile: Vertical dimension. J Clin Orthod. 1998;32:432–45. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Van Der Geld P, Oosterveld P, Van Heck G, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Smile attractiveness. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:759–65. doi: 10.2319/082606-349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tamer İ, Öztaş E, Marşan G. Orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and the scientific reality behind their marketing: A literature review. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32:241–6. doi: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]