Research Article| Volume 24, ISSUE 3, P351-357, September 2018

Download started.


Treatment of adult patients with esthetic appliances: Does appliance selection dictate the treatment plan?

Published:September 11, 2018DOI:
      Ever since the dawn of the specialty, orthodontic practitioners have usually chosen their therapeutic appliances carefully focused on the perceived functional outcomes and side effects intrinsic within their design to achieve optimal occlusal and esthetic results. Moreover, the therapeutic reliability and predictability of fixed labial orthodontic appliances has evolved to become the standard for assessing the efficacy of treating malocclusions whenever any other treatment modalities are considered. However, in recent decades with the rapid acceptance and preference for esthetic, or ‘minimally visible’, orthodontic appliances by the patient may have inadvertently locked them into alternative treatment plans that ignore previously tested and accepted optimal treatment objectives.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Seminars in Orthodontics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Jarjoura K.
        • Gagnon G.
        • Nieberg L.
        Caries risk after interproximal enamel reduction.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 26
        • Zachrisson B.U.
        • Nyoygaard L.
        • Mobarak K.
        Dental health assessed more than 10 years after interproximal enamel reduction of mandibular incisor teeth.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 162-169
        • Koretsi V.
        • Chatzigianni A.
        • Sidiropoulu S.
        Enamel roughness and incidence of caries after interproximal enamel reduction: a systematic review.
        Orthod Craniofac Res. 2014; 17: 1
        • Stroud J.L.
        • English J.
        • Buschang P.H.
        Enamel thickness of the posterior dentition: its implications for non extraction treatment.
        Angle Orthod. 1998; (Invisalign Academy)
        • Bowman S.J.
        • Celenza F.
        • Sparaga J.
        • Papadopoulos M.
        • Ojima K.
        • Lin J.C.Y.
        Creative adjuncts for clear aligners.
        J Clin Orthod. 2015; 49 (3) (4)
        • Li W.
        • Wang S.
        • Zhang Y.
        The effectiveness of the Invisalign appliance in extraction cases using the ABO model grading system.
        Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8: 8276
        • Rossini
        • Parrini S.
        • Castroflorio T.
        • Deregibus A.
        • Debernardi C.
        Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling tooth movement: a systematic review.
        Angle Orthod. 2015; 85: 881
        • Auluck A.
        Lingual orthodontic treatment: what is the current evidence base?.
        J Orthod. 2013; 40: S27-S33
        • Mistakidis I.
        • Katib H.
        • Vasilakos G.
        • Kloukos D.
        Clinical outcomes of lingual orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.
        Gkantidis N. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38: 447-458
        • Papageorgiou S.N.
        • Golz L.
        • Jager A.
        • Eliases T.
        • Bourauel C.
        Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances –systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects.
        Eur J Oral Sci. 2016; 124: 105
      1. Bowman J. Settling the score with Class IIs using miniscrews. in: Temporary Skeletal Anchorage devices. A guide to Design and Evidence-Based Solution. Ki Beom Kim Ed. Springer. Page 66.