English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of integrated models (IMs) constructed by pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography (pre-CBCT) in diagnosing alveolar defects after treatment with clear aligners. Materials and Methods Pre-CBCT and posttreatment cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans from 69 patients who completed nonextraction treatment with clear aligners were collected. The IMs comprised anterior teeth in predicted positions and alveolar bone from pre-CBCT scans. The accuracy of the IMs for identifying dehiscences or fenestrations was evaluated by comparing the means of the defect volumes, absolute mean differences, and Pearson correlation coefficients with those measured from post-CBCT scans. Defect prediction accuracy was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. Factors possibly affecting changes in mandibular alveolar defects were analyzed using a mixed linear model. Results The IM measurements showed mean deviations of 2.82 ± 9.99 mm3 for fenestrations and 3.67 ± 9.93 mm3 for dehiscences. The absolute mean differences were 4.50 ± 9.35 mm3 for fenestrations and 5.17 ± 9.24 mm3 for dehiscences. The specificities of the IMs were higher than 0.8, whereas the sensitivities were both lower (fenestration = 0.41; dehiscence = 0.53). The positive predictive values were unacceptable (fenestration = 0.52; dehiscence = 0.62), and the overall reliability was low (&amp;lt;0.80). Molar distalization and proclination were positively correlated with significant increases in alveolar defects at the mandibular incisors after treatment. Conclusions Alveolar defects after clear aligner treatment cannot be simulated accurately by IMs constructed from pre-CBCT. Caution should be taken in the treatment of crowding with proclination and molar distalization for the safety of alveolar bone at the mandibular incisors.

How well do integrated 3D models predict alveolar defects after treatment with clear aligners?