Thursday, March 22, 2012: 2 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
Objectives: To compare the efficiency of Invisalign (INV) and conventional edgewise braces (CEB) based on patients treated by the same, highly experienced, orthodontist. Methods: The retrospective portion of the study evaluated 150 patients who had received CEB and 150 INV patients. All records were obtained at one orthodontist’s office; all patients had mild-to-moderate Class I malocclusion and were treated non-extraction. The two groups of patients were matched based on the amount of initial malocclusion and number of rotated teeth. Age, gender, total treatment time, total number of appointments, types of appointments, materials used, mandibular crowding, and number of rotated teeth were recorded from the patients’ records. The prospective portion of the study timed the various types of appointments for both treatment with a stopwatch. Results: Compared to INV, CEB required significantly (p<.01) more visits (approximately 2.6), a longer treatment duration (2.4 months), more emergency visits (1.1), greater emergency chair time (9.7 minutes), greater emergency doctor time (1.2 minutes) and greater total chair time (86.2 minutes). However, INV showed significantly (p<.01) greater total material costs (~$500-$1441) and more total doctor time (5.9 minutes) than CEB. Conclusions: Whether the greater time efficiency of Invisalign is offset by the greater material costs and doctor time required will ultimately depend on the experience of the orthodontist and the number of INV case starts. This research was partially supported by the Baylor Oral Health Foundation and Align Technology, Inc.This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source: Baylor Oral Health Foundation, Align Technology
Keywords: Effectiveness, Evaluation, Invisalign, Malocclusion and Orthodontics