SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Meandros Medical And Dental Journal / 2026 / Volume: 25 Issue: 4

HOW RELIABLE IS THE AMOUNT OF INTERPROXIMAL REDUCTION CLINCHECK SOFTWARE RECOMMENDS?

Clincheck Yazılımının Önerdiği İnterproksımal Redüksiyon Miktarı Ne Kadar Güvenilir?

Yasemin Tunca(KUTAHYA HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4933-1380
Nihal Fahrzadeh(VAN YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2137-5453
Murat Tunca(Kütahya Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9157-9390
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-12-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A discrepancy was defined as the condition in which the Bolton ratio the software determined and the suggested IPR amount for the anterior ratio and the overall ratio exceeded 2 mm.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of Bolton analysis results obtained with ClinCheck software and the interproximal reduction (IPR) ratios the software recommends.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials Methods: From the Invisalign® clear aligner system database, 120 individuals were divided into three groups according to Angle classification: dental class I (n=43), dental class II (n=49), and dental class III (n=28) malocclusions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A discrepancy was defined as the condition in which the Bolton ratio the software determined and the suggested IPR amount for the anterior ratio and the overall ratio exceeded 2 mm.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Invisalign · clincheck · interproximal reduction

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of Bolton analysis results obtained with ClinCheck software and the interproximal reduction (IPR) ratios the software recommends. Materials Methods: From the Invisalign® clear aligner system database, 120 individuals were divided into three groups according to Angle classification: dental class I (n=43), dental class II (n=49), and dental class III (n=28) malocclusions. The Bolton analysis data and the IPR amounts determined by Align Technology’s digital treatment planning interface, ClinCheck, were evaluated separately for the maxilla and mandible for each individual. A discrepancy was defined as the condition in which the Bolton ratio the software determined and the suggested IPR amount for the anterior ratio and the overall ratio exceeded 2 mm. The average anterior Bolton ratio and suggested anterior Bolton ratio, along with the total Bolton ratio and suggested total Bolton ratio for all individuals, were compared using Cronbach’s alpha. Results: It was determined that the average suggested anterior Bolton ratio for individuals with class I malocclusion was higher than that for individuals with other malocclusions (p=0.008). Cronbach’s alpha for the anterior Bolton ratio and the suggested anterior Bolton ratio was 0.131 whereas the overall ratio and the suggested overall Bolton ratio value were determined to be 0.41. Both values are defined as indicating weak reliability. Conclusion: A weak reliability relationship was detected between the Bolton values obtained with the ClinCheck software and the IPR suggestions provided in treatment planning.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma ClinCheck yazılımı ile elde edilen Bolton analiz sonuçlarının ve yazılımın önerdiği interproksimal redüksiyon (IPR) oranlarının güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Materyal ve Metod: Invisalign® şeffaf plak sistemi veri tabanından 120 birey Angle sınıflamasına göre üç gruba ayrılmıştır: dental sınıf I (n=43), dental sınıf II (n=49) ve dental sınıf III (n=28) maloklüzyonlar. Bolton analiz verileri ve Align Technology’nin dijital tedavi planlama arayüzü ClinCheck tarafından belirlenen IPR miktarları her birey için maksilla ve mandibula için ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmiştir. Uyuşmazlık, yazılımın belirlediği Bolton oranı ile anterior oran ve genel oran için önerilen IPR miktarının 2 mm’yi aştığı durum olarak tanımlanmıştır. Tüm bireyler için ortalama anterior Bolton oranı ve önerilen anterior Bolton oranı ile toplam Bolton oranı ve önerilen toplam Bolton oranı Cronbach’s alpha kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: Sınıf I maloklüzyona sahip bireyler için önerilen anterior Bolton oranı ortalamasının (Ortalama:0.18), sınıf II maloklüzyona (Ortalama: 0.00) ve sınıf III maloklüzyona (Ortalama: 0.00) sahip bireylere göre daha yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir (p=0.008). Anterior Bolton oranı ve önerilen anterior Bolton oranı için Cronbach alfa değeri 0,131 iken, genel oran ve önerilen genel Bolton oranı değeri 0,41 olarak belirlenmiştir. Her iki değer de zayıf güvenilirlik göstergesi olarak tanımlanmıştır. Sonuç: ClinCheck yazılımı ile elde edilen Bolton değerleri ile tedavi planlamasında sunulan IPR önerileri arasında zayıf bir güvenilirlik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tunca, Y., Fahrzadeh, N., Tunca, M., *, M. T. (2024). HOW RELIABLE IS THE AMOUNT OF INTERPROXIMAL REDUCTION CLINCHECK SOFTWARE RECOMMENDS?. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal, Volume: 25 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.69601/meandrosmdj.1584202

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Hartshorne J, Wertheimer MB. Emerging insights and new developments in clear aligner therapy: A review of the literature. AJO-DO Clinical Companion 2022;2:311–324.
  2. Dhingra A, Palomo JM, Stefanovic N, et al. Comparing 3D Tooth Movement When Implementing the Same Virtual Setup on Different Software Packages. J Clin Med 2022;11:5351.
  3. Invisalign. ClinCheck® Evaluation Guide.
  4. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, et al. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:140–147.
  5. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:304–310.
  6. Aragón MLC, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:429–434.
  7. Meade MJ, Blundell H, Weir T. Predicted overbite and overjet changes with the Invisalign appliance: a validation study. Angle Orthod. Epub ahead of print September 1, 2023. DOI: 10.2319/041323-269.1.
  8. Adobes Martin M, Lipani E, Bernes Martinez L, et al. Reliability of Tooth Width Measurements Delivered by the Clin-Check Pro 6.0 Software on Digital Casts: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:3581.
  9. Shailendran A, Weir T, Freer E, et al. Accuracy and reliability of tooth widths and Bolton ratios measured by ClinCheck Pro. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022;161:65–73.
  10. Alqahtani H. A study to estimate tooth size discrepancy values specific to Saudi orthodontic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi Dent J 2023;35:498–507.
  11. Machado V, Botelho J, Mascarenhas P, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on Bolton’s ratios: Normal occlusion and malocclusion. J Orthod 2020;47:7–29.
  12. Fiori A, Minervini G, Nucci L, et al. Predictability of crowding resolution in clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod 2022;23:43.
  13. Othman S, Harradine N. Tooth size discrepancies in an orthodontic population. Angle Orthod 2007;77:668–674.
  14. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334.
  15. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:1–16.
  16. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, et al. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:16.e1–4; discussion 16.
  17. Laganà G, Malara A, Lione R, et al. Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus OrthoCAD analysis. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:199.
  18. Eliliwi M, ElShebiny T, de Menezes LM, et al. Comparing virtual setup software programs for clear aligner treatment. J World Fed Orthod 2023;12:50–55.
  19. https://www.invisalign.com/provider/ccpro6.0. ClinCheck 6.0 | Invisalign Provider Available from: https://www.invisalign.com/provider/ccpro6.0. Accessed December 24, 2023.
  20. Pinto-Coelho L. How Artificial Intelligence Is Shaping Medical Imaging Technology: A Survey of Innovations and Applications. Bioengineering (Basel) 2023;10:1435.
  21. Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, et al. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:230–238.
  22. Choi W-J, Lee S-J, Moon C-H. Evaluation of accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models in reproducing intermaxillary relational measurements: Based on inter-operator differences. Korean J Orthod 2022;52:20–28.
  23. Brown GB, Currier GF, Kadioglu O, et al. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:733–739.
  24. Mack S, Bonilla T, English JD, et al. Accuracy of 3-dimensional curvilinear measurements on digital models with intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:420–425.
  25. Sousa MVS, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:269–273.
  26. Kumar AA, Phillip A, Kumar S, et al. Digital model as an alternative to plaster model in assessment of space analysis. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7:S465-469.
  27. Brandão MM, Sobral MC, Vogel CJ. Reliability of Bolton analysis evaluation in tridimensional virtual models. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20:72–77.
  28. Porto BG, Porto TS, Silva MB, et al. Comparison of linear measurements and analyses taken from plaster models and three-dimensional images. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15:681–687.
  29. Al-Mashraqi AA, Alhammadi MS, Gadi AA, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of permanent dentitions and dental arch measurements: comparing three different digital models with a plaster study cast. Int J Comput Dent 2021;24:353–362.
  30. Wise RJ, Nevins M. Anterior tooth site analysis (Bolton Index): how to determine anterior diastema closure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1988;8:8–23.
  31. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296–309.
  32. William Proffit, Henry Fields, Brent Larson, et al. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6 th. Elsevier, 2018.
  33. Freeman JE, Maskeroni AJ, Lorton L. Frequency of Bolton tooth-size discrepancies among orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:24–27.
  34. Crosby DR, Alexander CG. The occurrence of tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:457–461.
  35. Bernabé E, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Tooth-width ratio discrepancies in a sample of Peruvian adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:361–365.
  36. Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, et al. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of Dominican Americans. Angle Orthod 2000;70:303–307.
  37. Araujo E, Souki M. Bolton anterior tooth size discrepancies among different malocclusion groups. Angle Orthod 2003;73:307–313.
  38. Zhang Y, Wang X, Wang J, et al. IPR treatment and attachments design in clear aligner therapy and risk of open gingival embrasures in adults. Prog Orthod 2023;24:1.
  39. Hariharan A, Arqub SA, Gandhi V, et al. Evaluation of interproximal reduction in individual teeth, and full arch assessment in clear aligner therapy: digital planning versus 3D model analysis after reduction. Prog Orthod 2022;23:9.