The biomechanical effects of clear aligner trimline designs and extensions on orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review
Issued Date
2024-12-01
Resource Type
eISSN
14726831
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85212771949
Journal Title
BMC Oral Health
Volume
24
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Oral Health Vol.24 No.1 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Nakornnoi T., Srirodjanakul W., Chintavalakorn R., Santiwong P., Sipiyaruk K. The biomechanical effects of clear aligner trimline designs and extensions on orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health Vol.24 No.1 (2024). doi:10.1186/s12903-024-05274-7 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/102547
Title
The biomechanical effects of clear aligner trimline designs and extensions on orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Clear aligner treatment (CAT) has emerged as an effective alternative to conventional multibracket systems in orthodontics. The trimline design and extension of aligners may significantly influence their biomechanical performance and tooth movement efficacy. Aim: To systematically review the biomechanical effects of different aligner trimline designs and extensions on orthodontic tooth movement. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2000 and August 2024. The review included any types of empirical research focusing on the influence of trimline of orthodontic aligners on tooth movement efficacy conducted between January 2000 and August 2024. The Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for quality assessment. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, all assessed as having low to moderate risk of bias. Aligner trimline design significantly influenced orthodontic tooth movement efficacy through two primary mechanisms: enhanced force delivery and increased aligner retention. Aligners with straight and extended margins generally exerted higher forces and moments compared to scalloped or shorter designs. This resulted in greater tooth displacement for certain movements, particularly intrusion, translation, tipping, and root torquing. Extended trimlines also demonstrated superior retention. However, the effects varied depending on the type of tooth movement. Conclusion: Aligner trimline designs and extensions can significantly influence biomechanical performance and tooth movement efficacy in CAT. Straight extended trimlines generally demonstrate superior force delivery and retention, leading to more predictable clinical outcomes. This could reduce the need for revisions, thereby decreasing overall treatment time and increasing patient satisfaction. However, further research is needed to investigate the interactions between aligner trimline designs and other factors to develop evidence-based guidelines for their optimal combination in various clinical scenarios.