Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index

Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreat...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Griffith, Mary [verfasserIn] Fields, Henry W. [verfasserIn] Ni, Andy [verfasserIn] Guo, Xiaohan [verfasserIn] Lee, Damian J. [verfasserIn] Deguchi, Toru [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986, 160, Seite 718-724
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:160 ; pages:718-724

DOI / URN:	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028

Katalog-ID:	ELV006851495

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	ELV006851495
003	DE-627
005	20230524154811.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230506s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)ELV006851495
035			\|a (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rda
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q DE-600
084			\|a 44.96 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a Griffith, Mary \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a nicht spezifiziert \|b zzz \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider.
700	1		\|a Fields, Henry W. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Ni, Andy \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Guo, Xiaohan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Lee, Damian J. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Deguchi, Toru \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics \|d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986 \|g 160, Seite 718-724 \|h Online-Ressource \|w (DE-627)318884763 \|w (DE-600)2021368-2 \|w (DE-576)093980973 \|x 1097-6752 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:160 \|g pages:718-724
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_U
912			\|a SYSFLAG_U
912			\|a GBV_ELV
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_101
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2004
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2049
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2059
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2064
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2065
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2068
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2118
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2122
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2143
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2147
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2148
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2153
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2336
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2507
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2522
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4035
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4242
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4251
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4326
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4333
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4334
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4393
936	b	k	\|a 44.96 \|j Zahnmedizin
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 160 \|h 718-724

Indexfelder

author_variant	m g mg h w f hw hwf a n an x g xg d j l dj djl t d td
matchkey_str	article:10976752:2021----::oprsnfivslgtagnrtossnteer
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
bklnumber	44.96
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028 doi (DE-627)ELV006851495 (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.96 bkl Griffith, Mary verfasserin aut Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider. Fields, Henry W. verfasserin aut Ni, Andy verfasserin aut Guo, Xiaohan verfasserin aut Lee, Damian J. verfasserin aut Deguchi, Toru verfasserin aut Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986 160, Seite 718-724 Online-Ressource (DE-627)318884763 (DE-600)2021368-2 (DE-576)093980973 1097-6752 nnns volume:160 pages:718-724 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.96 Zahnmedizin AR 160 718-724
spelling	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028 doi (DE-627)ELV006851495 (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.96 bkl Griffith, Mary verfasserin aut Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider. Fields, Henry W. verfasserin aut Ni, Andy verfasserin aut Guo, Xiaohan verfasserin aut Lee, Damian J. verfasserin aut Deguchi, Toru verfasserin aut Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986 160, Seite 718-724 Online-Ressource (DE-627)318884763 (DE-600)2021368-2 (DE-576)093980973 1097-6752 nnns volume:160 pages:718-724 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.96 Zahnmedizin AR 160 718-724
allfields_unstemmed	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028 doi (DE-627)ELV006851495 (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.96 bkl Griffith, Mary verfasserin aut Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider. Fields, Henry W. verfasserin aut Ni, Andy verfasserin aut Guo, Xiaohan verfasserin aut Lee, Damian J. verfasserin aut Deguchi, Toru verfasserin aut Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986 160, Seite 718-724 Online-Ressource (DE-627)318884763 (DE-600)2021368-2 (DE-576)093980973 1097-6752 nnns volume:160 pages:718-724 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.96 Zahnmedizin AR 160 718-724
allfieldsGer	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028 doi (DE-627)ELV006851495 (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.96 bkl Griffith, Mary verfasserin aut Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider. Fields, Henry W. verfasserin aut Ni, Andy verfasserin aut Guo, Xiaohan verfasserin aut Lee, Damian J. verfasserin aut Deguchi, Toru verfasserin aut Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986 160, Seite 718-724 Online-Ressource (DE-627)318884763 (DE-600)2021368-2 (DE-576)093980973 1097-6752 nnns volume:160 pages:718-724 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.96 Zahnmedizin AR 160 718-724
allfieldsSound	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028 doi (DE-627)ELV006851495 (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 44.96 bkl Griffith, Mary verfasserin aut Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index 2021 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider. Fields, Henry W. verfasserin aut Ni, Andy verfasserin aut Guo, Xiaohan verfasserin aut Lee, Damian J. verfasserin aut Deguchi, Toru verfasserin aut Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986 160, Seite 718-724 Online-Ressource (DE-627)318884763 (DE-600)2021368-2 (DE-576)093980973 1097-6752 nnns volume:160 pages:718-724 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 44.96 Zahnmedizin AR 160 718-724
language	English
source	Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 160, Seite 718-724 volume:160 pages:718-724
sourceStr	Enthalten in American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 160, Seite 718-724 volume:160 pages:718-724
format_phy_str_mv	Article
bklname	Zahnmedizin
institution	findex.gbv.de
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Griffith, Mary @@aut@@ Fields, Henry W. @@aut@@ Ni, Andy @@aut@@ Guo, Xiaohan @@aut@@ Lee, Damian J. @@aut@@ Deguchi, Toru @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	318884763
dewey-sort	3610
id	ELV006851495
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV006851495</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524154811.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230506s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV006851495</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.96</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Griffith, Mary</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fields, Henry W.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ni, Andy</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Guo, Xiaohan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, Damian J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Deguchi, Toru</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986</subfield><subfield code="g">160, Seite 718-724</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)318884763</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2021368-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)093980973</subfield><subfield code="x">1097-6752</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:160</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:718-724</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.96</subfield><subfield code="j">Zahnmedizin</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">160</subfield><subfield code="h">718-724</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Griffith, Mary
spellingShingle	Griffith, Mary ddc 610 bkl 44.96 Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
authorStr	Griffith, Mary
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)318884763
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	elsevier
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1097-6752
topic_title	610 DE-600 44.96 bkl Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
topic	ddc 610 bkl 44.96
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 bkl 44.96
topic_browse	ddc 610 bkl 44.96
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
hierarchy_parent_id	318884763
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)318884763 (DE-600)2021368-2 (DE-576)093980973
title	Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
ctrlnum	(DE-627)ELV006851495 (ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7
title_full	Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
author_sort	Griffith, Mary
journal	American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
journalStr	American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	zzz
container_start_page	718
author_browse	Griffith, Mary Fields, Henry W. Ni, Andy Guo, Xiaohan Lee, Damian J. Deguchi, Toru
container_volume	160
class	610 DE-600 44.96 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Griffith, Mary
doi_str_mv	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of 2 invisalign tray generations using the peer assessment rating index
title_auth	Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
abstract	Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider.
abstractGer	Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider.
abstract_unstemmed	Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393
title_short	Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index
remote_bool	true
author2	Fields, Henry W. Ni, Andy Guo, Xiaohan Lee, Damian J. Deguchi, Toru
author2Str	Fields, Henry W. Ni, Andy Guo, Xiaohan Lee, Damian J. Deguchi, Toru
ppnlink	318884763
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028
up_date	2024-07-06T22:46:09.555Z
_version_	1803871552335249408
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV006851495</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524154811.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230506s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.028</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV006851495</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0889-5406(21)00415-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.96</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Griffith, Mary</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: This study aimed to establish if there is a significant difference in effectiveness between 2 generations of Invisalign trays in terms of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score reduction for finished patients from a graduate orthodontic clinic.Methods: Forty-five pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with the previous Invisalign material and 49 pretreatment and posttreatment patients treated with SmartTrack material were scored using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Both groups were controlled for initial weighted PAR score, age, gender, and treatment time. The 2 generations were compared in regard to absolute reduction, percent reduction, and great improvement in PAR score.Results: The mean absolute reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.526). The mean percent reduction in weighted PAR score between the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.210). The proportion of great improvement between the groups was not significant (P = 0.526). Only 6 of the 8 components of occlusion had enough variation to be modeled. An absolute reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the groups for maxillary anterior alignment, overjet, or mandibular anterior alignment (P = 0.996, 1.000, and 0.114, respectively). Percent reduction in unweighted PAR score was not significantly different between the 2 groups for an anteroposterior, overbite, or transverse (P = 1.000, 1.000, and 1.000, respectively) relationships.Conclusions: Our study indicates that both generations of Invisalign aligners improved the malocclusion to a similar degree according to the PAR index. Patient-centric benefits of SmartTrack aligner should also be considered by the provider.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fields, Henry W.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ni, Andy</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Guo, Xiaohan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lee, Damian J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Deguchi, Toru</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 1986</subfield><subfield code="g">160, Seite 718-724</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)318884763</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2021368-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)093980973</subfield><subfield code="x">1097-6752</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:160</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:718-724</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.96</subfield><subfield code="j">Zahnmedizin</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">160</subfield><subfield code="h">718-724</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4022093

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of 2 Invisalign tray generations using the Peer Assessment Rating index

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?