The accuracy of biomechanical mechanisms for dental deep bite correction using the Invisalign system

Objective To evaluate the accuracy of the Invisalign appliance in correcting an anterior deep bite in adults and to compare different mechanisms of bite opening. Materials and methods This retrospective study included 25 patients (mean age 32.28 years) who presented with a moderate overbite (Group 1, with an overbite ranging from 3.5 mm to 5 mm) or a severe overbite (Group 2, with an overbite >= 5 mm), treated by the same operator using the Invisalign appliance. Digital models generated for the ClinCheck process were analysed at the initial (T0), planned (ST1), and clinically achieved (ET1) stages using Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) to measure overbite correction. The accuracy and mechanisms of deep bite correction (proclination and intrusion of the incisors, posterior tooth extrusion) were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Materials and methods This retrospective study included 25 patients (mean age 32.28 years) who presented with a moderate overbite (Group 1, with an overbite ranging from 3.5 mm to 5 mm) or a severe overbite (Group 2, with an overbite >= 5 mm), treated by the same operator using the Invisalign appliance. Digital models generated for the ClinCheck process were analysed at the initial (T0), planned (ST1), and clinically achieved (ET1) stages using Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) to measure overbite correction. The accuracy and mechanisms of deep bite correction (proclination and intrusion of the incisors, posterior tooth extrusion) were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using R 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Results Significant differences were found between the ST1 and ET1 stages of overbite correction in both groups (P < 0.01). Group 1 showed the highest mean accuracy (51.35%) with a mean difference of 1.15 mm between ST1 and ET1. Group 2 had the lowest mean accuracy (41.56%) with a mean difference of 2.11 mm. No significant differences in mean accuracy were found between the groups or between the mechanisms of overbite correction (P > 0.05). Results Significant differences were found between the ST1 and ET1 stages of overbite correction in both groups (P < 0.01). Group 1 showed the highest mean accuracy (51.35%) with a mean difference of 1.15 mm between ST1 and ET1. Group 2 had the lowest mean accuracy (41.56%) with a mean difference of 2.11 mm. No significant differences in mean accuracy were found between the groups or between the mechanisms of overbite correction (P > 0.05). Conclusion The Invisalign appliance shows significant inaccuracy between the ClinCheck simulation and the clinical outcome in correcting moderate and severe deep bites in adults. There was similar predictability between the different bite opening mechanisms.