Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utilization rates of digital orthodontic software, intraoral scanners, clear aligner treatments, and digital orthognathic surgical planning programs among orthodontists registered with the Turkish Orthodontic Association, as well as orthodontic specialization/doctoral students. The study also aims to assess the reasons for choosing or not choosing these digital methods. The survey questions were prepared using the SurveyMonkey survey program and were distributed to members of the Turkish Orthodontic Association via email. The survey, in which a total of 220 individuals participated, includes questions related to demographic information, usage of digital orthodontic software programs, intraoral scanners, clear aligner treatments, and digital orthognathic surgical planning programs, as well as participants' opinions. The survey results obtained from the participants were evaluated using descriptive statistics, Pearson's chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of the participants, 61.8% were orthodontists, and 38.2% were orthodontic specialization/doctoral students. Among the participants, 77.7% use orthodontic digital software programs, 68.6% use intraoral scanners, 79.5% use clear aligner treatments, and 47.3% use digital orthognathic surgical planning programs. When evaluated based on professional position, it was determined that those who use orthodontic digital software programs, intraoral scanners, and clear aligner treatments are predominantly orthodontists (p<0.05). Orthodontists mainly prefer "clear aligner treatments," while orthodontic specialization/doctoral students prefer orthodontic digital software programs for "cephalometric tracing" purposes (p<0.05). In this study, participants perceive digital and electronic technology as useful tools that can enhance clinical efficiency and streamline workflow. Lack of experience and high costs associated with implementing current digital practices are seen as the main barriers to adopting these applications. As costs decrease and the affordability of 3D printers and intraoral scanners improves, it is likely that more practitioners will be interested in incorporating digital tools and systems into their practices.
xmlui.mirage2.itemSummaryView.Collections
xmlui.dri2xhtml.METS-1.0.item-citation
7. KAYNAKLAR
1. Martin, C.B., et al., Orthodontic scanners: what's available? J Orthod, 2015. 42(2): p. 136-43.
2. Impellizzeri, A., et al., CBCT and Intra-Oral Scanner: The Advantages of 3D Technologies in Orthodontic Treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020. 17(24).
3. Tarraf, N.E. and D.M. Ali, Present and the future of digital orthodontics✰. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2018.
4. Manosudprasit, A., et al., Diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontic patients with 3-dimensional dentofacial records. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2017. 151(6): p. 1083-1091.
5. Matthews, D.C., et al., Factors Influencing Adoption of New Technologies into Dental Practice: A Qualitative Study. JDR Clin Trans Res, 2016. 1(1): p. 77-85.
6. Broadbent, B.H., A NEW X-RAY TECHNIQUE and ITS APPLICATION TO ORTHODONTIA. Angle Orthodontist, 2009. 1: p. 45-66.
7. Houston, W.J., et al., Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod, 1986. 8(3): p. 149-51.
8. Midtgård, J., G. Björk, and S. Linder-Aronson, Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod, 1974. 44(1): p. 56-61.
9. Chen, S.K., et al., Enhanced speed and precision of measurement in a computer-assisted digital cephalometric analysis system. Angle Orthod, 2004. 74(4): p. 501-7.
10. Celik, E., O. Polat-Ozsoy, and T.U. Toygar Memikoglu, Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod, 2009. 31(3): p. 241-6.
11. Agrawal, J.M., et al., CBCT in orthodontics: the wave of future. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2013. 14(1): p. 153-7.
12. Christopoulou, I., et al., Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022. 19(3).
13. Logozzo, S., et al., Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 2014. 54: p. 203–221.
14. Mangano, F., et al., Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health, 2017. 17(1): p. 149.
15. Rheude, B., et al., An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod, 2005. 75(3): p. 300-4.
16. Mangano, A., et al., Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients. Open Dent J, 2018. 12: p. 118-124.
17. Akyalcin, S., et al., Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2013. 144(6): p. 916-22.
18. Fleming, P.S., V. Marinho, and A. Johal, Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2011. 14(1): p. 1-16.
19. Christensen, L.R. and J.B. Cope, Digital technology for indirect bonding. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2018. 24(4): p. 451-460.
20. Garino, F. and G.B. Garino, Computer-aided interactive indirect bonding. Prog Orthod, 2005. 6(2): p. 214-23.
21. Ciuffolo, F., et al., Rapid prototyping: a new method of preparing trays for indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2006. 129(1): p. 75-7.
22. Kim, J., Y.S. Chun, and M. Kim, Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2018. 153(2): p. 298-307.
23. Wong, B.H., Invisalign A to Z. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2002. 121(5): p. 540-1.
24. Emilia, T., K. Budi, and A.E. Carla, 3D Scanning, Imaging, and Printing in Orthodontics, in Issues in Contemporary Orthodontics, B. Farid, Editor. 2015, IntechOpen: Rijeka. p. Ch. 9.
25. Cunha, T., I.D.S. Barbosa, and K.K. Palma, Orthodontic digital workflow: devices and clinical applications. Dental Press J Orthod, 2021. 26(6): p. e21spe6.
26. Durão, A.R., et al., Influence of lateral cephalometric radiography in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod, 2015. 85(2): p. 206-10.
27. Uysal, T., A. Baysal, and A. Yagci, Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses. Eur J Orthod, 2009. 31(5): p. 523-8.
28. Sandler, P.J., Reproducibility of Cephalometric Measurements. British Journal of Orthodontics, 1988. 15(2): p. 105-110.
29. Chen, Y.J., et al., The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod, 2004. 74(2): p. 155-61.
30. Power, G., et al., Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2005. 34(6): p. 619-26.
31. Turner, P.J. and S. Weerakone, An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images. J Orthod, 2001. 28(3): p. 221-9.
32. Aharon, P.A., S. Eisig, and G.J. Cisneros, Surgical prediction reliability: a comparison of two computer software systems. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg, 1997. 12(1): p. 65-78.
33. Baskin, H.N. and G.J. Cisneros, A comparison of two computer cephalometric programs. J Clin Orthod, 1997. 31(4): p. 231-3.
34. Naoumova, J. and R. Lindman, A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced. Eur J Orthod, 2009. 31(3): p. 247-53.
35. Sayinsu, K., et al., An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod, 2007. 29(1): p. 105-8.
36. Prabhakar, R., et al., A hard tissue cephalometric comparative study between hand tracing and computerized tracing. J Pharm Bioallied Sci, 2014. 6(Suppl 1): p. S101-6.
37. Farooq, M.U., et al., Assessing the Reliability of Digitalized Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Manual Cephalometric Analysis. J Clin Diagn Res, 2016. 10(10): p. Zc20-zc23.
38. Paixão, M.B., et al. Comparative study between manual and digital cephalometric tracing using Dolphin Imaging software with lateral radiographs. 2010.
39. Erkan, M., et al., Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs. Eur J Orthod, 2012. 34(3): p. 318-21.
40. Houston, W.J., The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod, 1983. 83(5): p. 382-90.
41. Kamoen, A., L. Dermaut, and R. Verbeeck, The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod, 2001. 23(5): p. 569-78.
42. Miller, R.L., et al., Graphic computerization of cephalometric data. J Dent Res, 1971. 50(5): p. 1363.
43. Savage, A.W., K.J. Showfety, and J. Yancey, Repeated measures analysis of geometrically constructed and directly determined cephalometric points. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1987. 91(4): p. 295-9.
44. Leonardi, R., et al., Automatic cephalometric analysis. Angle Orthod, 2008. 78(1): p. 145-51.
45. Hutton, T.J., S. Cunningham, and P. Hammond, An evaluation of active shape models for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Eur J Orthod, 2000. 22(5): p. 499-508.
46. Petrik, V., et al., Godfrey Hounsfield and the dawn of computed tomography. Neurosurgery, 2006. 58(4): p. 780-7; discussion 780-7.
47. Hatcher, D.C., Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc, 2010. 141 Suppl 3: p. 3s-6s.
48. Kapila, S.D. and J.M. Nervina, CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2015. 44(1): p. 20140282.
49. Abdelkarim, A., Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics. Dent J (Basel), 2019. 7(3).
50. Kamio, T., et al., DICOM segmentation and STL creation for 3D printing: a process and software package comparison for osseous anatomy. 3D Print Med, 2020. 6(1): p. 17.
51. Mörmann, W., et al., [Marginal adaptation of adhesive porcelain inlays in vitro]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed (1984), 1985. 95(12): p. 1118-29.
52. Birnbaum, N., et al., 3D Digital Scanners: A High-Tech Approach to More Accurate Dental Impressions. Inside Dentistry, 2009. 5.
53. Mörmann, W.H., The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc, 2006. 137 Suppl: p. 7s-13s.
54. Kravitz, N.D., et al., Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod, 2014. 48(6): p. 337-47.
55. Hwang, H.H.-M., et al. An Overview of Digital Intraoral Scanners: Past, Present and Future- From an Orthodontic Perspective. 2018.
56. Park, J.H. and J. Laslovich, Trends in the Use of Digital Study Models and Other Technologies Among Practicing Orthodontists. J Clin Orthod, 2016. 50(7): p. 413-9.
57. Kravitz, N.D., C. Groth, and T. Shannon, CAD/CAM software for three-dimensional printing. J Clin Orthod, 2018. 52(1): p. 22-27.
58. Shastry, S. and J.H. Park, Evaluation of the use of digital study models in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. Angle Orthod, 2014. 84(1): p. 62-7.
59. Czarnota, J., J. Hey, and R. Fuhrmann, Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts : Intrarater reliability and validity. J Orofac Orthop, 2016. 77(1): p. 22-30.
60. Leifert, M.F., et al., Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009. 136(1): p. 16.e1-4; discussion 16.
61. Campbell, T., et al., Could 3D Printing Change the World? Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive Manufacturing. 2011.
62. Wong, K., K.V. Wong, A.Hernandez, “A Review of Additive Manufacturing,” ISRN Mechanical Engineering, Vol 2012 (2012), Article ID 208760, 10 pages. ISRN Mechanical Engineering, 2012. 2012.
63. Hazeveld, A., J.J. Huddleston Slater, and Y. Ren, Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2014. 145(1): p. 108-15.
64. Wiechmann, D., et al., Customized brackets and archwires for lingual orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2003. 124(5): p. 593-9.
65. Nasef, A.A., A.R. El-Beialy, and Y.A. Mostafa, Virtual techniques for designing and fabricating a retainer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2014. 146(3): p. 394-8.
66. Lauren, M. and F. McIntyre, A new computer-assisted method for design and fabrication of occlusal splints. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008. 133(4 Suppl): p. S130-5.
67. Groth, C., N.D. Kravitz, and J.M. Shirck, Incorporating three-dimensional printing in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod, 2018. 52(1): p. 28-33.
68. Sardarian, A., et al., The effect of vertical bracket positioning on torque and the resultant stress in the periodontal ligament--a finite element study. Prog Orthod, 2014. 15(1): p. 50.
69. Zachrisson BU, B.T., Bonding in Orthodontics, in Orthodontics: Current Principals and Techniques, V.R. Graber TM, Editor. 2005, Elsevier Mosby: St. Louis. p. 579-659.
70. El-Timamy, A.M., et al., Three-dimensional imaging for indirect-direct bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2016. 149(6): p. 928-31.
71. Silverman, E., et al., A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod, 1972. 62(3): p. 236-44.
72. Castilla, A.E., et al., Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod, 2014. 84(4): p. 607-14.
73. El Nigoumi, A., Assessing the Accuracy of Indirect Bonding with 3D Scanning Technology. J Clin Orthod, 2016. 50(10): p. 613-619.
74. Aguirre, M.J., G.J. King, and J.M. Waldron, Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod, 1982. 82(4): p. 269-76.
75. Brown, M.W., et al., Effectiveness and efficiency of a CAD/CAM orthodontic bracket system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2015. 148(6): p. 1067-74.
76. Koo, B.C., C.H. Chung, and R.L. Vanarsdall, Comparison of the accuracy of bracket placement between direct and indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1999. 116(3): p. 346-51.
77. Bozelli, J.V., et al., Comparative study on direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques regarding time length and bracket detachment. Dental Press J Orthod, 2013. 18(6): p. 51-7.
78. Alessandretti, R., et al., Reliability and mode of failure of bonded monolithic and multilayer ceramics. Dent Mater, 2017. 33(2): p. 191-197.
79. Xue, C., et al., Accurate bracket placement using a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing-guided bonding device: An in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2020. 157(2): p. 269-277.
80. Sfondrini, M.F., et al., Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback. Biomed Res Int, 2018. 2018: p. 4103232.
81. Mayhew, M.J., Computer-aided bracket placement for indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod, 2005. 39(11): p. 653-60.
82. Israel, M., et al., A comparison of traditional and computer-aided bracket placement methods. Angle Orthod, 2011. 81(5): p. 828-35.
83. Kesling, H.D., Coordinating the predetermined pattern and tooth positioner with conventional treatment. Am J Orthod Oral Surg, 1946. 32: p. 285-93.
84. Nahoum, H.I., The vacuum formed dental contour appliance. NY State Dent J, 1964. 9: p. 385-390.
85. Ponitz, R.J., Invisible retainers. Am J Orthod, 1971. 59(3): p. 266-72.
86. Sheridan, J.J., W.R. Ledoux, and R. Mcminn, Essix retainers: fabrication and supervision for permanent retention. Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO, 1993. 27 1: p. 37-45.
87. Kuo, E. and R.J. Miller, Automated custom-manufacturing technology in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2003. 123(5): p. 578-81.
88. Barone, S., et al., Computational design and engineering of polymeric orthodontic aligners. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng, 2017. 33(8): p. e2839.
89. Martorelli, M., et al., A comparison between customized clear and removable orthodontic appliances manufactured using RP and CNC techniques. Dent Mater, 2013. 29(2): p. e1-10.
90. Beers, A.C., W. Choi, and E. Pavlovskaia, Computer-assisted treatment planning and analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2003. 6 Suppl 1: p. 117-25.
91. Boyd, R.L. and V. Waskalic, Three-dimensional diagnosis andorthodontic treatment of complex malocclusions with the invisalign appliance. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2001. 7: p. 274-293.
92. Joffe, L., Invisalign: early experiences. J Orthod, 2003. 30(4): p. 348-52.
93. Miethke, R.R. and S. Vogt, A comparison of the periodontal health of patients during treatment with the Invisalign system and with fixed orthodontic appliances. J Orofac Orthop, 2005. 66(3): p. 219-29.
94. Ali, S.A. and H.R. Miethke, Invisalign, an innovative invisible orthodontic appliance to correct malocclusions: advantages and limitations. Dent Update, 2012. 39(4): p. 254-6, 258-60.
95. Phan, X. and P.H. Ling, Clinical limitations of Invisalign. J Can Dent Assoc, 2007. 73(3): p. 263-6.
96. Stokbro, K., et al., Virtual planning in orthognathic surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2014. 43(8): p. 957-65.
97. De Riu, G., et al., Accuracy of computer-assisted orthognathic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2018. 46(2): p. 293-298.
98. Donaldson, C.D., M. Manisali, and F.B. Naini, Three-dimensional virtual surgical planning (3D-VSP) in orthognathic surgery: Advantages, disadvantages and pitfalls. J Orthod, 2021. 48(1): p. 52-63.
99. Aristizábal, J.F., et al., Surgery-first approach with 3D customized passive self-ligating brackets and 3D surgical planning: Case report. Dental Press J Orthod, 2018. 23(3): p. 47-57.
100. Vale, F., et al., 3D virtual planning in orthognathic surgery and CAD/CAM surgical splints generation in one patient with craniofacial microsomia: a case report. Dental Press J Orthod, 2016. 21(1): p. 89-100.
101. Hammoudeh, J.A., et al., Current Status of Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery: Traditional Methods versus 3D Surgical Planning. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 2015. 3(2): p. e307.
102. Hsu, S.S., et al., Accuracy of a computer-aided surgical simulation protocol for orthognathic surgery: a prospective multicenter study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2013. 71(1): p. 128-42.
103. Elnagar, M.H., S. Aronovich, and B. Kusnoto, Digital Workflow for Combined Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am, 2020. 32(1): p. 1-14.
104. Otranto de Britto Teixeira, A., et al., Three-dimensional accuracy of virtual planning in orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2020. 158(5): p. 674-683.
105. Vaid, N., DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN ORTHODONTICS – An update. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2018. 24.
106. Jacox, L.A., et al., Understanding technology adoption by orthodontists: A qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2019. 155(3): p. 432-442.
107. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 1988, LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES: Hillsdale.
108. Ünüvar, Y., Cesur, M., Zorluk, F,. Ortodontistler arasında dijital model kullanımının değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Dent, 2020: p. 466-470.
109. Alosman, E., Marşan G., Şeffaf Plaklar ve Sabit Apareyler İle Yapılan Ortodontik Tedavilerin Ortodontistler Tarafından Değerlendirilmesi Akdeniz Diş Hekimliği Dergisi 2023. 2: p. 20-28.
110. Dogan, E.Ö., Ç., Ortodontistlerin Dijital Ortodontiye Bakış Açısının Değerlendirilmesi. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 2022: p. 1-9.
111. Nulty, D.D., The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008. 33(3): p. 301-314.
112. Locker, D., Response and nonresponse bias in oral health surveys. J Public Health Dent, 2000. 60(2): p. 72-81.
113. Bentsın C., C.D., Opportunities in the Evolving Orthodontic Industry–Digital Processes, Teledentistry and Group Practices. Seminars in Orthodontics, 2022. 28.
114. Palmer, N.G., et al., Perceptions and attitudes of Canadian orthodontists regarding digital and electronic technology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005. 128(2): p. 163-7.
115. Doğan, E. and Ç. Öztürk, Evaluation of Orthodontists' Perspective on Digital Orthodontics. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg, 2022. 43(50): p. 1-9.
116. Yuzbasioglu, E., et al., Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, 2014. 14: p. 10.
117. Schepke, U., et al., Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent, 2015. 114(3): p. 403-6.e1.
118. Wismeijer, D., et al., Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014. 25(10): p. 1113-8.
119. Burhardt, L., et al., Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2016. 150(2): p. 261-267.
120. Glisic, O., L. Hoejbjerre, and L. Sonnesen, A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models. Angle Orthod, 2019. 89(6): p. 868-875.
121. d'Apuzzo, F., et al., Clear aligner treatment: different perspectives between orthodontists and general dentists. Prog Orthod, 2019. 20(1): p. 10.
122. Ozkan T., D.D., An investigation of the opinions and preferences of orthodontists in Turkey regarding the use of clear aligners in orthodontic treatment: Original article. DergiPark, 2023. 28(1).
123. Buschang, P.H., et al., Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces. Angle Orthod, 2013.
124. Gu, J., et al., Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2017. 151(2): p. 259-266.
125. Zheng, M., et al., Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2017. 20(3): p. 127-133.
126. Pereira, D., et al., Comparison of Pain Perception between Clear Aligners and Fixed Appliances: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Applied Sciences, 2020. 10: p. 4276.
127. Miller, K.B., et al., A comparison of treatment impacts between Invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007. 131(3): p. 302.e1-9.
128. Karkhanechi, M., et al., Periodontal status of adult patients treated with fixed buccal appliances and removable aligners over one year of active orthodontic therapy. Angle Orthod, 2013. 83(1): p. 146-51.
129. Mueller, C.D., C.L. Schur, and L.C. Paramore, Access to dental care in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc, 1998. 129(4): p. 429-37.
130. Van Hemelen, G., et al., Three-dimensional virtual planning in orthognathic surgery enhances the accuracy of soft tissue prediction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2015. 43(6): p. 918-25.
131. Bengtsson, M., et al., A comparison of cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted 2-and 3-dimensional planning techniques in orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019. 57(4): p. 352-358.
132. Resnick, C.M., et al., Is There a Difference in Cost Between Standard and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery? J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2016. 74(9): p. 1827-33.
133. Wrzosek, M.K., et al., Comparison of time required for traditional versus virtual orthognathic surgery treatment planning. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2016. 45(9): p. 1065-1069.
134. Alkaabi, S., et al., Virtual and traditional surgical planning in orthognathic surgery – systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2022. 60(9): p. 1184-1191.
135. Park, S.Y., et al., Comparison of time and cost between conventional surgical planning and virtual surgical planning in orthognathic surgery in Korea. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg, 2019. 41(1): p. 35.
136. Steinhuber, T., et al., Is Virtual Surgical Planning in Orthognathic Surgery Faster Than Conventional Planning? A Time and Workflow Analysis of an Office-Based Workflow for Single- and Double-Jaw Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2018. 76(2): p. 397-407.
137. Paniagua, B., et al., Outcome quantification using SPHARM-PDM toolbox in orthognathic surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 2011. 6(5): p. 617-26.
138. Mori, Y., et al., Development of a simulation system in mandibular orthognathic surgery based on integrated three-dimensional data. Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2011. 15(3): p. 131-8.
139. Chabanas, M., et al., Evaluating soft tissue simulation in maxillofacial surgery using preoperative and postoperative CT scans. International Congress Series, 2006. 1268: p. 419-424.
140. Kaipatur, N.R. and C. Flores-Mir, Accuracy of computer programs in predicting orthognathic surgery soft tissue response. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2009. 67(4): p. 751-9.
141. Chen, Z., et al., A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery: Based on Randomized Clinical Trials. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2021. 79(2): p. 471.e1-471.e19.
142. Jeon, J.H., Digital technology in orthognathic surgery: virtual surgical planning and digital transfer. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019. 45(5): p. 231-232.
143. Adolphs, N., et al., RapidSplint: virtual splint generation for orthognathic surgery - results of a pilot series. Comput Aided Surg, 2014. 19(1-3): p. 20-8.
144. Schneider, D., et al., Customized virtual surgical planning in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Clin Oral Investig, 2019. 23(7): p. 3115-3122.
145. Sabri, R., Orthodontic objectives in orthognathic surgery: state of the art today. World J Orthod, 2006. 7(2): p. 177-91.