Long-term Outcomes of Traditional Braces versus Invisalign in Orthodontic Treatment

ABSTRACT

Objective:

This research targets to compare the longstanding outcomes of traditional braces versus Invisalign in orthodontic treatment, focusing on dental alignment, occlusal stability, patient satisfaction, and treatment duration.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort research with 200 subjects was piloted. One hundred subjects received traditional braces, while the other 100 received Invisalign. Dental models, cephalometric radiographs, and intraoral photographs were obtained at baseline, post-treatment, and at 1, 2, and 5 years follow-up. Patient satisfaction surveys were administered at each follow-up visit.

Results:

Both traditional braces and Invisalign effectively improved dental alignment and occlusal stability over the 5-year follow-up period. Patient satisfaction scores were consistently higher in the Invisalign group compared to the traditional braces group. However, there were no significant differences in treatment duration between the two groups.

Conclusion:

Invisalign may offer comparable or superior longstanding outcomes compared to traditional braces in orthodontic treatment, with higher patient satisfaction levels. These findings support the use of Invisalign as a viable alternative to traditional braces, particularly for subjects seeking esthetic and convenient orthodontic solutions.

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic treatment plays a crucial role in correcting malocclusions and enhancing dental esthetics and function. For decades, traditional braces have been the mainstay of orthodontic intervention, offering effective realignment of teeth and correction of bite discrepancies. However, the introduction of Invisalign, a relatively newer alternative, has revolutionized orthodontic care by providing a more discreet and convenient treatment option.[1,2,3]

Despite the widespread use of both traditional braces and Invisalign, there remains a paucity of comparative research focusing on their longstanding outcomes. Understanding the comparative effectiveness of these treatment modalities is essential for orthodontists to make informed decisions tailored to individual patient needs.[4,5,6]

Given the increasing demand for orthodontic treatments that balance effectiveness with patient comfort and esthetics, investigating the longstanding performance of traditional braces and Invisalign is of paramount importance. This research endeavors to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in orthodontics, guiding clinicians in selecting the most suitable treatment approach for their patients’ needs and preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort research was conducted at a single orthodontic tertiary care center and included 200 subjects who underwent orthodontic treatment between 2010 and 2015. The research population comprised 100 subjects treated with traditional braces and 100 subjects treated with Invisalign. Data collection involved the review of patient records, including dental models, cephalometric radiographs, and intraoral photographs obtained at baseline, post-treatment, and 1, 2, and 5 years follow-up visits.

Patient satisfaction surveys were administered at each follow-up appointment to assess subjective experiences with treatment modalities. Statistical analysis was performed to compare changes in dental alignment, occlusal stability, treatment duration, and patient satisfaction between the traditional braces and Invisalign groups.

Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board prior to data collection, ensuring adherence to ethical guidelines for human patients research. Informed consent was obtained from all participants or their legal guardians before inclusion in the research.

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the research population. The mean age of subjects in the traditional braces group was 16.5 years (±2.3), while in the Invisalign group, it was 17.2 years (±2.1). There was a balanced distribution of gender across both groups, with 52% male and 48% female participants in each group.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of research population

Characteristic	Traditional Braces Group	Invisalign Group
Mean Age (years)	16.5 (±2.3)	17.2 (±2.1)
Gender (Male/Female)	52%/48%	52%/48%

Table 2 presents changes in dental alignment and occlusal parameters over time. In terms of dental alignment, both traditional braces and Invisalign resulted in significant improvements. At baseline, the mean dental alignment was 6.8 mm (±1.2) in the traditional braces group and 6.7 mm (±1.1) in the Invisalign group. Post treatment, these values reduced to 1.5 mm (±0.8) and 1.6 mm (±0.7), respectively, indicating substantial alignment improvement. Over the 5-year follow-up period, further minor adjustments were observed, with both groups reaching a mean alignment of 0.2 mm (±0.1). Regarding occlusal parameters, specifically overjet, similar trends were observed. At baseline, the mean overjet was 4.2 mm (±0.9) in the traditional braces group and 4.1 mm (±0.8) in the Invisalign group. Post treatment, both groups experienced reductions in overjet, with mean values of 2.1 mm (±0.7) and 2.0 mm (±0.6), respectively. This trend continued over the follow-up period, with both groups achieving comparable overjet values of 0.8 mm (±0.2) in the traditional braces group and 0.7 mm (±0.2) in the Invisalign group at the 5-year mark.

Table 2.

Changes in dental alignment and occlusal parameters over time

Parameter	Baseline	Post-Treatment	1 Year Follow-up	2 Years Follow-up	5 Years Follow-up
Dental alignment (mm)
Traditional braces group	6.8 (±1.2)	1.5 (±0.8)	0.5 (±0.3)	0.3 (±0.2)	0.2 (±0.1)
Invisalign group	6.7 (±1.1)	1.6 (±0.7)	0.4 (±0.2)	0.3 (±0.2)	0.2 (±0.1)
Occlusal parameters
Overjet (mm)
Traditional braces group	4.2 (±0.9)	2.1 (±0.7)	1.2 (±0.4)	1.0 (±0.3)	0.8 (±0.2)
Invisalign group	4.1 (±0.8)	2.0 (±0.6)	1.1 (±0.3)	0.9 (±0.3)	0.7 (±0.2)

DISCUSSION

Both traditional braces and Invisalign showed significant improvements in dental alignment over the 5-year follow-up, consistent with prior studies.[1,2] Reductions in mean dental alignment values post treatment indicate efficacy in realigning teeth and correcting malocclusions. Similarly, both modalities resulted in significant reductions in overjet, indicating improved occlusal parameters, aligning with previous research.[3,4] Comparable outcomes suggest both modalities address a wide range of orthodontic concerns regarding dental alignment and occlusal parameters.

Subjects treated with Invisalign consistently reported higher satisfaction scores, possibly due to its esthetic appeal and convenience.[5,6] Clear aligners are virtually invisible and removable, allowing subjects to maintain normal habits with minimal disruption, enhancing satisfaction.[7] While statistical analysis did not reveal significant differences in treatment duration, subjects treated with Invisalign perceived shorter treatment durations, possibly due to its flexibility and fewer in-office adjustments.[8] However, perceived treatment duration varies among individuals, influenced by treatment complexity and compliance. Patient characteristics and treatment goals play a role in modality selection, with traditional braces remaining viable for complex orthodontic issues requiring precise control. Limitations include the retrospective design and reliance on patient records, limiting generalizability. Future multicenter studies are needed for robust evidence on the long-term outcomes of traditional braces versus Invisalign.

CONCLUSION

This research establishes that both traditional braces and Invisalign are effective in achieving longstanding improvements in dental alignment and occlusal stability. While both treatment modalities offer comparable outcomes, Invisalign may offer additional benefits in terms of patient satisfaction and perceived treatment duration. Clinicians should consider individual patient preferences and treatment goals when selecting the most appropriate orthodontic treatment modality.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.