Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or...

[Full title: Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Tooth, Angle, Molar, Doi, Class, Basel, Lips, Angel, Dental, Chung, Wang, Hai, Fang, Plane, Int, Branch, Han, Hui, Shan, Hospital, Maps, Development, Jason, Kuan, Huang, Edu, China, Oral, Under, Iii, Paul, Few, Lip, Missing, Open, Icon, Comfort, Ling, Female, Shing, Due, Chang, Chen, April, Lower, Strong, Younger, Yen, Line, Need, Liao]

Citation: Liao, T.-H.; Fang, J.C.-C.; Wang, I.-K.; Huang, C.-S.; Chen, H.-L.; Yen, T.-H. Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph 19116569 Academic Editor: Paul B Tchounwou Received: 27 April 2022 Accepted: 26 May 2022 Published: 27 May 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Copyright: © 2022 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article Characteristics and Dental Indices of Orthodontic Patients Using Aligners or Brackets Tzu-Han Liao 1 , Jason Chen-Chieh Fang 2 , I-Kuan Wang 3,4 , Chiung-Shing Huang 5 , Hui-Ling Chen 1, * and Tzung-Hai Yen 6,7, * 1 Department of Dentistry and Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan; angel 0219@cgmh.org.tw 2 School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung 402, Taiwan; s 0601014@gm.csmu.edu.tw 3 Department of Nephrology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 404, Taiwan; ikwang@mail.cmuh.org.tw 4 College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung 406, Taiwan 5 Craniofacial Research Center, Department Craniofacial Orthodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei 105, Taiwan; cshuang@cgmh.org.tw 6 College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan 7 Clinical Poison Center, Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Branch, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan * Correspondence: ma 3608@cgmh.org.tw (H.-L.C.); m 19570@cgmh.org.tw (T.-H.Y.) Abstract: Background. Clear aligners have become a treatment alternative to metal brackets in recent years due to the advantages of aesthetics, comfort, and oral health improvement. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the clinical characteristics and dental indices of orthodontic patients using aligners or brackets. Methods. A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021. Patients were stratified by types of treatment (Invisalign ® clear aligner ( n = 60) or metal bracket ( n = 110). Results: Patients were aged 26.1 ± 7.2 years, and most were female (75.0%). The Invisalign ® group was older than the bracket group ( p = 0.003). The skeletal relationships were mainly Class I (49.4%), followed by Class II (30.0%) and Class III (20.6%). The molar relationships were primarily Class I (38.8%), followed by Class II (37.1%) and Class III (24.1%) The decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index was 9.9 ± 6.0, including 2.1 ± 2.9 for decayed teeth, 0.5 ± 1.1 for missing teeth, and 7.3 ± 4.3 for filled teeth. There were no significant differences in the DMFT index or skeletal and molar relationships between the groups ( p > 0.05). The index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) was 56.8 ± 13.5, and the score was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group ( p = 0.002). Among the variables included in the ICON assessment, only the aesthetic variable was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group ( p < 0.001) The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle was 27.9 ± 5.1 degrees. Finally, the E-line of the lower lip was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group (1.5 ± 2.4 versus 2.8 ± 3.1, p = 0.005) Conclusions. Older patients showed a greater intention to choose Invisalign ® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. The demand for Invisalign ® aligner treatment for aesthetic reasons was substantial. A soft tissue profile with more protrusive lower lips and a greater need for orthodontic treatment was found in the bracket group Keywords: aligners; metal brackets; skeletal relationships; molar relationships; decayed, missing, and filled tooth index; index of complexity outcome and need; Frankfort-mandibular plane angle; E-line of lower lip 1. Introduction There have been increasing numbers of patients seeking clear aligner orthodontic treatments instead of conventional metal brackets in recent years. The development of Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph 19116569 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Pacheco, Modern, Choice, Less, Plan, Form, Life, Roth, Tweed, Pereira, Tools, Steiner, Tomy, Data, Lack, Age, Patient, Fixed, Table, Sign, Company, Still, Self, Study, Cosmetic, Weight, Mem, Quality, Focus]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 2 of 13 this computer-aided clear aligner technique has provided another treatment choice to patients for the improvement of aesthetics, comfort, and oral health. A series of removable polyurethane aligners have become a treatment alternative to fixed labial braces due to their biological, aesthetic, and psychological advantages [ 1 ]. In 1997, Align Technology, CA, USA was founded, and Invisalign ® clear aligner was marketed in 1999 [ 2 , 3 ]. The company fabricates a series of custom-made aligners that sequentially reposition the teeth through computer-aided design and manufacturing concepts. After continually improving the technology, Invisalign ® has become one of the most commonly used systems among aligners Several studies have focused on assessing the treatment outcome of Invisalign ® in comparison to the metal bracket system. Regardless of the limited treatment effect reported on Invisalign ® -treated patients, there was a statistically similar satisfaction outcome in comparison to bracket-based patients in the assessment of the survey of Pacheco-Pereira et al. [ 4 ] in 2018. The Invisalign ® group even reported more satisfaction with eating and chewing. Patients choose clear aligners because they have more cosmetic demand Also, the aligners are associated with less discomfort during treatment, and are more beneficial for oral health [ 5 ]. Modern patients choose treatment modalities that focus not only on the treatment effects and treatment expenses, but also on their quality of life during treatment. There are several investigations to assess the quality of different treatment methods in orthodontics [ 4 , 6 ]; few are related to the need before treatment and satisfaction after treatment. Regarding the satisfaction survey, the assessment tools are still limited to questionnaires [ 7 ] and are subject to subjectivity. Furthermore, there is still a lack of previous studies focusing on the characteristics of patients who tend to choose clear aligner treatment Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyze the clinical characteristics and dental indices of patients who choose clear aligner or metal bracket treatment 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Patients A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021. After pretreatment data collection, each patient’s data was analyzed, and the treatment plan was determined after discussion with the patient. Then, each patient was thoroughly informed of the advantages and disadvantages of available orthodontic appliances: for example, oral hygiene maintenance, periodontal health, interference of eating, disturbance of speech. The patients were completely independent in choosing either metal brackets (Roth’s prescription, TOMY, Japan, “Genius” self-ligating brackets, MEM, Taiwan and Clippy-C, TOMY, Japan) or clear aligner (Invisalign ® , Align technology). Demographic records, such as age, sex, height, weight, and BMI, were obtained. Pretreatment intraoral photographs, dental casts, and radiographs were collected to assess the decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index, index of complexity outcome and need (ICON), dental malocclusion type, sagittal skeletal relationship, and cephalometric facial dimensions 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria All adult patients who visited the orthodontic clinic of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021 were recruited for this study. Patients who refused to sign the informed consent form were omitted from the analysis. Furthermore, this study also excluded patients who had previous orthognathic surgery, dentofacial trauma, or craniofacial malformation 2.3. Assessment of the Sagittal Skeletal Relationship The anterior-posterior skeletal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible of the orthodontic patient was classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III (Figures 1 and 2 ) according to Steiner’s [ 8 ] and Tweed’s [ 9 ] analyses (Table 1 ).

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Sella, Low, Base, Chin, Front, Fossa, Ear, High, Point, Bridge, Groove, Nose, Bones]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 3 of 13 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 3 of 13 2.3. Assessment of the Sagittal Skeletal Relationship The anterior-posterior skeletal relationship between the maxilla and the mandible of the orthodontic patient was classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III (Figures 1 and 2) according to Steiner’s [8] and Tweed’s [9] analyses (Table 1). Table 1. Definitions of terms used in assessing the sagittal skeletal relationship. Landmark Definition Sella (S) The center of the hypophyseal fossa (sella turcica) Nasion (N) The junction of the nasal and frontal bones at the most posterior point on the curvature of the bridge of the nose Porion (Po) The uppermost point of the external ear meatus Orbitale (Or) A point midway between the lowest point on the inferior margin of the two orbits Menton (Me) The lowest point on the symphysis of the mandible A point (A) The innermost curvature of the maxillary apical base B point (B) The innermost curvature from the chin to the alveolar junction Figure 1. The landmarks used to analyze lateral cephalometric radiographs. Figure 1. The landmarks used to analyze lateral cephalometric radiographs Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 4 of 13 ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Figure 2. The sagittal skeletal relationship was classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III based on the ANB angle, which was formed by the A point, Nasion, and B point: ( a ) Class I relationship: ANB angle was 2–4 degrees; ( b ) Class II relationship: ANB angle was larger than 4 degrees; ( c ) Class III relationship: ANB angle was smaller than 2 degrees. 2.4. Assessment of Dental Malocclusion Type The dental malocclusion type of the orthodontic patient was defined as molar Class I, Class II, or Class III based on Angle’s classification (Figure 3). ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Figure 3. Dental malocclusion based on Angle’s classification: ( a ) Class I molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar; ( b ) Class II molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes in front of the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar; ( c ) Class III molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes behind the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar. 2.5. Assessment of Facial Pattern The Frankfort–mandibular plane angle (FMA) and sella-nasion to mandibular plane (SN–MP) angle were applied to define three facial patterns in orthodontics (Figures 4 and 5). The average angle of FMA was between 27 degrees and 34 degrees, and FMA smaller than 27 degrees was defined as low angle patient, and FMA larger than 34 degrees was defined as high angle patient. Figure 2. The sagittal skeletal relationship was classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III based on the ANB angle, which was formed by the A point, Nasion, and B point: ( a ) Class I relationship: ANB angle was 2–4 degrees; ( b ) Class II relationship: ANB angle was larger than 4 degrees; ( c ) Class III relationship: ANB angle was smaller than 2 degrees Table 1. Definitions of terms used in assessing the sagittal skeletal relationship Landmark Definition Sella (S) The center of the hypophyseal fossa (sella turcica) Nasion (N) The junction of the nasal and frontal bones at the most posterior point on the curvature of the bridge of the nose Porion (Po) The uppermost point of the external ear meatus Orbitale (Or) A point midway between the lowest point on the inferior margin of the two orbits Menton (Me) The lowest point on the symphysis of the mandible A point (A) The innermost curvature of the maxillary apical base B point (B) The innermost curvature from the chin to the alveolar junction

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Eye, Lines, Tip, Ricketts, Merrifield, Balance, Location]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 4 of 13 2.4. Assessment of Dental Malocclusion Type The dental malocclusion type of the orthodontic patient was defined as molar Class I, Class II, or Class III based on Angle’s classification (Figure 3 ). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 4 of 13 ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Figure 2. The sagittal skeletal relationship was classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III based on the ANB angle, which was formed by the A point, Nasion, and B point: ( a ) Class I relationship: ANB angle was 2–4 degrees; ( b ) Class II relationship: ANB angle was larger than 4 degrees; ( c ) Class III relationship: ANB angle was smaller than 2 degrees. 2.4. Assessment of Dental Malocclusion Type The dental malocclusion type of the orthodontic patient was defined as molar Class I, Class II, or Class III based on Angle’s classification (Figure 3). ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) Figure 3. Dental malocclusion based on Angle’s classification: ( a ) Class I molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar; ( b ) Class II molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes in front of the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar; ( c ) Class III molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes behind the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar. 2.5. Assessment of Facial Pattern The Frankfort–mandibular plane angle (FMA) and sella-nasion to mandibular plane (SN–MP) angle were applied to define three facial patterns in orthodontics (Figures 4 and 5). The average angle of FMA was between 27 degrees and 34 degrees, and FMA smaller than 27 degrees was defined as low angle patient, and FMA larger than 34 degrees was defined as high angle patient. Figure 3. Dental malocclusion based on Angle’s classification: ( a ) Class I molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar; ( b ) Class II molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes in front of the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar; ( c ) Class III molar relationship: the mesiobuccal cusp of the upper first molar occludes behind the mesiobuccal groove of the lower first molar 2.5. Assessment of Facial Pattern The Frankfort–mandibular plane angle (FMA) and sella-nasion to mandibular plane (SN–MP) angle were applied to define three facial patterns in orthodontics (Figures 4 and 5 ). The average angle of FMA was between 27 degrees and 34 degrees, and FMA smaller than 27 degrees was defined as low angle patient, and FMA larger than 34 degrees was defined as high angle patient Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 5 of 13 Figure 4. Frankfort–mandibular plane angle (FMA). The FMA was constructed by the intersection of the Frankfort horizontal plane and the mandibular plane. Figure 5. Sella-nasion plane to the mandibular plane (SN–MP) angle. The SN-MP angle was formed by the intersection of the SN plane and the mandibular plane. In addition, Merrifield’s profile line and Z angle [10] (an angle formed by a chinprotrusive line intersecting the Frankfort horizontal plane), Burstone’s B line [11,12] (a line from the chin to the subnasale), Steiner’s S 1 line [13,14] (a line from the chin to the midpoint bisecting the nasal nostril border line), Sushner’s S 2 line [15] (a line from the soft tissue nasion to soft tissue pogonion), Holdaway’s H line [16,17] (a line from the chin to the upper lip), and Ricketts’ E-line [18,19] were all suitable to analyze facial configurations. Ricketts’ E-lines [18,19] and Z angle [10] were measured in this study. The Ricketts’ E-line is one of most convenient reference lines, in comparison to other reference lines, because of its anterior location [20]. Additionally, the Z angle provides a critical description of the lower face relationship and eliminates the vagueness of “eye judgment”; it is the angle between the Frankfort–mandibular plane angle and soft tissue profile (Figure 6), which quantifies facial balance. Lip protrusion is defined by the relationship of the upper and lower lips to the Ricketts’ E-line. The Ricketts’ E-line is a line drawn from the tip of the nose to the soft-tissue pogonion (Figure 7) [18]. The upper lip and lower lip should be tangent to this line for Caucasian individuals. On the other Figure 4. Frankfort–mandibular plane angle (FMA). The FMA was constructed by the intersection of the Frankfort horizontal plane and the mandibular plane.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Chinese, Range, Normal, Hand]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 5 of 13 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 5 of 13 Figure 4. Frankfort–mandibular plane angle (FMA). The FMA was constructed by the intersection of the Frankfort horizontal plane and the mandibular plane. Figure 5. Sella-nasion plane to the mandibular plane (SN–MP) angle. The SN-MP angle was formed by the intersection of the SN plane and the mandibular plane. In addition, Merrifield’s profile line and Z angle [10] (an angle formed by a chinprotrusive line intersecting the Frankfort horizontal plane), Burstone’s B line [11,12] (a line from the chin to the subnasale), Steiner’s S 1 line [13,14] (a line from the chin to the midpoint bisecting the nasal nostril border line), Sushner’s S 2 line [15] (a line from the soft tissue nasion to soft tissue pogonion), Holdaway’s H line [16,17] (a line from the chin to the upper lip), and Ricketts’ E-line [18,19] were all suitable to analyze facial configurations. Ricketts’ E-lines [18,19] and Z angle [10] were measured in this study. The Ricketts’ E-line is one of most convenient reference lines, in comparison to other reference lines, because of its anterior location [20]. Additionally, the Z angle provides a critical description of the lower face relationship and eliminates the vagueness of “eye judgment”; it is the angle between the Frankfort–mandibular plane angle and soft tissue profile (Figure 6), which quantifies facial balance. Lip protrusion is defined by the relationship of the upper and lower lips to the Ricketts’ E-line. The Ricketts’ E-line is a line drawn from the tip of the nose to the soft-tissue pogonion (Figure 7) [18]. The upper lip and lower lip should be tangent to this line for Caucasian individuals. On the other Figure 5. Sella-nasion plane to the mandibular plane (SN–MP) angle. The SN-MP angle was formed by the intersection of the SN plane and the mandibular plane In addition, Merrifield’s profile line and Z angle [ 10 ] (an angle formed by a chinprotrusive line intersecting the Frankfort horizontal plane), Burstone’s B line [ 11 , 12 ] (a line from the chin to the subnasale), Steiner’s S 1 line [ 13 , 14 ] (a line from the chin to the midpoint bisecting the nasal nostril border line), Sushner’s S 2 line [ 15 ] (a line from the soft tissue nasion to soft tissue pogonion), Holdaway’s H line [ 16 , 17 ] (a line from the chin to the upper lip), and Ricketts’ E-line [ 18 , 19 ] were all suitable to analyze facial configurations Ricketts’ E-lines [ 18 , 19 ] and Z angle [ 10 ] were measured in this study. The Ricketts’ E-line is one of most convenient reference lines, in comparison to other reference lines, because of its anterior location [ 20 ]. Additionally, the Z angle provides a critical description of the lower face relationship and eliminates the vagueness of “eye judgment”; it is the angle between the Frankfort–mandibular plane angle and soft tissue profile (Figure 6 ), which quantifies facial balance. Lip protrusion is defined by the relationship of the upper and lower lips to the Ricketts’ E-line. The Ricketts’ E-line is a line drawn from the tip of the nose to the soft-tissue pogonion (Figure 7 ) [ 18 ]. The upper lip and lower lip should be tangent to this line for Caucasian individuals. On the other hand, the upper and lower lip are more protrusive in Chinese individuals, and a more convex facial profile is seen compared with Caucasian individuals [ 21 ]. The Z angle is another angular measurement for evaluating the soft tissue profile of the esthetics of the lower face. It is formed by the intersection of the Frankfort horizontal plane and the profile line, which is established by drawing a line from the soft-tissue chin to the most anterior point of either the lower or the upper lip, whichever protrudes the most. The normal range of the Z angle is typically 70–80 degrees [ 10 ].

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Daniels, Sum, Arch, Standard, Mild, Final, Set, Richmond]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 6 of 13 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6 of 13 hand, the upper and lower lip are more protrusive in Chinese individuals, and a more convex facial profile is seen compared with Caucasian individuals [21]. The Z angle is another angular measurement for evaluating the soft tissue profile of the esthetics of the lower face. It is formed by the intersection of the Frankfort horizontal plane and the profile line, which is established by drawing a line from the soft-tissue chin to the most anterior point of either the lower or the upper lip, whichever protrudes the most. The normal range of the Z angle is typically 70–80 degrees [10]. Figure 6. Z angle. The angle is formed by the Frankfort horizontal plane angle and soft tissue profile. Figure 7. Ricketts’ Esthetic line (E-line). The line is drawn from the tip of the nose to the soft-tissue pogonion. 2.6. Assessment of the DMFT Index The DMFT index is the sum of the numbers of decayed teeth, teeth missing due to caries, and filled teeth in the permanent teeth. It is an indicator used to measure an individual’s dental caries situation, and it further reflects the deterioration of oral hygiene. Figure 6. Z angle. The angle is formed by the Frankfort horizontal plane angle and soft tissue profile Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6 of 13 hand, the upper and lower lip are more protrusive in Chinese individuals, and a more convex facial profile is seen compared with Caucasian individuals [21]. The Z angle is another angular measurement for evaluating the soft tissue profile of the esthetics of the lower face. It is formed by the intersection of the Frankfort horizontal plane and the profile line, which is established by drawing a line from the soft-tissue chin to the most anterior point of either the lower or the upper lip, whichever protrudes the most. The normal range of the Z angle is typically 70–80 degrees [10]. Figure 6. Z angle. The angle is formed by the Frankfort horizontal plane angle and soft tissue profile. Figure 7. Ricketts’ Esthetic line (E-line). The line is drawn from the tip of the nose to the soft-tissue pogonion. 2.6. Assessment of the DMFT Index The DMFT index is the sum of the numbers of decayed teeth, teeth missing due to caries, and filled teeth in the permanent teeth. It is an indicator used to measure an individual’s dental caries situation, and it further reflects the deterioration of oral hygiene. Figure 7. Ricketts’ Esthetic line (E-line). The line is drawn from the tip of the nose to the soft-tissue pogonion 2.6. Assessment of the DMFT Index The DMFT index is the sum of the numbers of decayed teeth, teeth missing due to caries, and filled teeth in the permanent teeth. It is an indicator used to measure an individual’s dental caries situation, and it further reflects the deterioration of oral hygiene 2.7. Assessment of the ICON The ICON is an index of treatment need and an occlusal index of malocclusion complexity. It was proposed by Daniels C and Richmond S in 2000 [ 22 ] and it could evaluate not only the treatment need but also the treatment outcome (Figure 8 ). The ICON is composed of assessments of dental aesthetics, upper arch crowding, the presence of crossbite, the anterior vertical relationship (incisor overbite), and the buccal segment anteroposterior interdigitation. The aesthetic component involves comparing the frontal photo of the dentition to the illustrated scale [ 22 ], and the scale is graded from 1 (most attractive) to 10 (least attractive). By analyzing the study model, the other occlusal traits are scored as numeric values according to the standard protocol [ 22 ]. Each item is attached to a different weight, and the final ICON score is divided into malocclusion complexity grades (<29 = easy, 29–50 = mild; 51–63 = moderate, 64–77 = difficult, >77 = very difficult) [ 22 ]. A cutoff point of 43 is set to determine a definite need for orthodontic treatment.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Level, Ibm, Square, Bite, Deep, Chi]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 7 of 13 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 7 of 13 2.7. Assessment of the ICON The ICON is an index of treatment need and an occlusal index of malocclusion complexity. It was proposed by Daniels C and Richmond S in 2000 [22] and it could evaluate not only the treatment need but also the treatment outcome (Figure 8). The ICON is composed of assessments of dental aesthetics, upper arch crowding, the presence of crossbite, the anterior vertical relationship (incisor overbite), and the buccal segment anteroposterior interdigitation. The aesthetic component involves comparing the frontal photo of the dentition to the illustrated scale [22], and the scale is graded from 1 (most attractive) to 10 (least attractive). By analyzing the study model, the other occlusal traits are scored as numeric values according to the standard protocol [22]. Each item is attached to a different weight, and the final ICON score is divided into malocclusion complexity grades (<29 = easy, 29–50 = mild; 51–63 = moderate, 64–77 = difficult, >77 = very difficult) [22]. A cutoff point of 43 is set to determine a definite need for orthodontic treatment. ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) Figure 8. ( a , b ) Upper arch crowding/spacing: ( a ) Crowding indicates that there is a discrepancy between the space required by the teeth and the space available. ( b ) Spacing: the opposite of crowding, the space available exceeds the space needed. ( c , d ) Incisor overbite: Incisor overbite indicates the anterior vertical relationship. ( c ) Deep bite: there is a vertical overlap of the incisors. ( d ) Open bite: there is no vertical overlap of the incisors. ( e ) Crossbite: Crossbite indicates the transverse relationship. Normally, the buccal cusp of the mandibular dentition should occlude to the lingual cusp of the maxillary dentition. ( f ) Buccal segment anteroposterior relationship: The anteroposterior cuspal relationship of premolars and molars. Normally, it should be a cusp-to-embrasure relationship 2.8. Statistical Analysis For descriptive statistics, all continuous variables were presented as the means and standard deviations, and categorical variables were presented as numbers and percentages. Comparisons between the Invisalign and bracket groups were performed using independent t tests for quantitative variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. All statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. (Armonk, NY, USA, 2017). The significance level for all tests was set at p value < 0.05.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Body, Year, Mass]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 8 of 13 3. Results 3.1. Baseline Demographics A total of 170 patients received orthodontic treatment at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2021 (Table 2 ). Patients were stratified by types of orthodontic device (Invisalign ® clear aligner ( n = 60) or metal brackets ( n = 110)). The patients were aged 26.1 ± 7.2 years, and most were female (75.0%). The Invisalign ® group was older than the bracket group (28.6 ± 8.5 versus 24.8 ± 6.1, p = 0.003). No significant differences in other demographic variables were noted between the groups ( p > 0.05) Table 2. Baseline demographics of patients, stratified by orthodontic device (Invisalign ® or bracket) ( n = 170) Variable All Patients ( n = 170) Invisalign ® Group ( n = 60) Bracket Group ( n = 110) p Value Age (year) 26.1 ± 7.2 28.6 ± 8.5 24.8 ± 6.1 0.003 ** Female, n (%) 127 (75%) 41 (68.3%) 86 (78.2%) 0.176 Height (cm) 162.9 ± 7.2 164.0 ± 7.1 162.2 ± 7.3 0.129 Weight (kg) 56.6 ± 10.6 58.0 ± 11.0 55.9 ± 10.3 0.227 Body mass index (kg/m 2 ) 21.2 ± 3.2 21.4 ± 3.0 21.1 ± 3.3 0.631 Note: ** p < 0.01 3.2. Sagittal Skeletal Relationship Table 3 showed that the skeletal relationships were mainly Class I (49.4%), followed by Class II (30.0%) and Class III (20.6%). No significant difference was noted between the groups ( p = 0.558) Table 3. Sagittal skeletal relationship of patients, stratified by orthodontic device (Invisalign ® or bracket) ( n = 170) Variable All Patients ( n = 170) Invisalign ® Group ( n = 60) Bracket Group ( n = 110) p Value Class I, n (%) 84 (49.4) 32 (38.1) 52 (61.9) 0.558 Class II, n (%) 51 (30.0) 17 (33.3) 34 (66.7) Class III, n (%) 35 (20.6) 11 (31.4) 24 (68.6) 3.3. Dental Malocclusion Type A total of 38.8% of the study subjects presented a Class I molar relationship, 37.1% presented a Class II molar relationship, and 24.1% presented a Class III molar relationship (Table 4 ). No significant difference was noted between the groups ( p = 0.912) Table 4. Malocclusion type of patients, stratified by orthodontic device (Invisalign ® or bracket) ( n = 170) Variable All Patients ( n = 170) Invisalign ® Group ( n = 60) Bracket Group ( n = 110) p Value Class I, n (%) 66 (38.8) 23 (34.8) 43 (65.2) 0.912 Class II, n (%) 63 (37.1) 22 (34.9) 41 (65.1) Class III, n (%) 41 (24.1) 15 (36.6) 26 (63.4) 3.4. Facial Pattern The FMA was 27.9 ± 5.1 degrees, which was within the average range of Taiwanese people (Table 5 ). The Invisalign ® group presented a less protrusive lower lip than the brackets group (Ricketts’ E-line to the lower lip, Invisalign ® : 1.5 ± 2.4 mm; bracket: 2.8 ± 3.1 mm, p = 0.005). No significant differences were noted between the groups for other facial variables.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Single, Panel, Might, Mean, Seek, Young]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 9 of 13 Table 5. Cephalometric facial measurements of patients, stratified by orthodontic device (Invisalign ® or bracket) ( n = 170) Variable All Patients ( n = 170) Invisalign ® Group ( n = 60) Bracket Group ( n = 110) p Value FMA 27.9 ± 5.1 27.3 ± 4.8 28.3 ± 5.3 0.218 SN-MP 36.6 ± 7.7 36.6 ± 10.3 36.5 ± 5.8 0.960 Z angle 68.1 ± 12.7 66.6 ± 12.0 68.9 ± 13.1 0.245 E-line, upper lip 0.1 ± 2.8 0.1 ± 2.5 0.1 ± 3.0 0.951 E-line, lower lip 2.3 ± 2.9 1.5 ± 2.4 2.8 ± 3.1 0.005 ** Note: ** p < 0.01, FMA, Frankfort–mandibular plane angle, SN-MP, SN plane to the mandibular plane 3.5. Decayed, Missing, and Filled Tooth (DMFT) Index The DMFT index was 9.9 ± 6.0, including 2.1 ± 2.9 for decayed teeth, 0.5 ± 1.1 for missing teeth, and 7.3 ± 4.3 for filled teeth (Table 6 ). No significant differences were noted between the groups Table 6. Decayed, missing, and filled tooth (DMFT) index of patients, stratified by orthodontic device (Invisalign ® or bracket) ( n = 170) Variable All Patients ( n = 170) Invisalign ® Group ( n = 60) Bracket Group ( n = 110) p Value Decayed 2.1 ± 2.9 2.3 ± 3.1 1.9 ± 2.6 0.391 Missing 0.5 ± 1.1 0.5 ± 0.9 0.5 ± 1.2 0.696 Filled 7.3 ± 4.3 7.1 ± 4.7 7.4 ± 4.1 0.682 DMFT index 9.9 ± 6.0 9.9 ± 6.0 9.9 ± 6.1 0.969 3.6. Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON) The index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) was 56.8 ± 13.5, and the score was lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group ( p = 0.002, Table 7 ). Among the variables included in the ICON assessment, only the aesthetic variable was significantly lower in the Invisalign ® group than in the bracket group ( p < 0.001) Table 7. Index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) of patients, stratified by orthodontic device (Invisalign ® or bracket) ( n = 170) All Subjects ( n = 170) Invisalign ( n = 60) Brackets ( n = 110) p Value Aesthetic 6.5 ± 1.2 6.0 ± 1.3 6.8 ± 1.2 <0.001 *** Upper arch crowding 1.1 ± 1.2 1.0 ± 1.1 1.2 ± 1.2 0.246 Crossbite 0.4 ± 0.5 0.4 ± 0.5 0.5 ± 0.5 0.570 Incisor overbite 0.8 ± 0.8 0.7 ± 0.9 0.8 ± 0.8 0.422 Buccal segment anteroposterior 2.2 ± 0.8 2.0 ± 0.7 2.2 ± 0.8 0.425 ICON 56.8 ± 13.5 59.4 ± 12.5 65.6 ± 12.6 0.002 ** Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 4. Discussion Most of the orthodontic patients were young (26.1 ± 7.2 years), and most of them were female (75.0%). Older patients showed more intention to choose Invisalign ® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. Young single females (aged 18–30 years) with higher incomes were significantly more likely to seek orthodontic treatment according to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey in the United States, 2000–2004 [ 23 ]. The mean age of the Taiwanese patients seeking orthodontic treatment was approximately 25.2 years [ 24 ], which was similar to the average age (24.8 ± 6.1) in the bracket group. Nevertheless, the Invisalign ® group (28.6 ± 8.5 years) was slightly older than the bracket group (24.8 ± 6.1 years). The possible explanation might be that there were more students recruited into the bracket group, and

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: South, Harmony, Better, Bias, North, Europe, Smile, East, Large, Asia, Price, Iran, Shorter, Burden, Middle, Visual, Meier, Severe, Pose, Spain, Reason, Africa]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 10 of 13 most were not financially independent. The higher price of the Invisalign ® treatment might pose a potential burden to patients who have a limited budget There were no significant differences between the Invisalign ® and bracket groups in terms of dental and skeletal variables. In addition, there was no significant difference in the DMFT index between the groups. The mean DMFT index of our patients was 9.9 ± 6.0. In comparison to the DMFT index in other countries, for example, 6.2 in the United States, 7.3 in Iran, 12.5 in Spain, 12.28 in Japan, and 12.10 in Malaysia [ 25 – 27 ], our data was within the ranges. Radiographs are more sensitive in detecting incipient caries and restorations than visual inspection [ 28 ]. In our study, we used bitewings and periapical radiographs to detect decayed and filled teeth, which might be one of the reasons why our patients exhibited a slightly higher DMFT index than those in other studies The mean ICON score of all patients was 56.8 ± 13.5. The ICON score was 58.9 in South Asia, 57.3 in the United States, 56.6 in Australia, 55.8 in Africa, 52.4 in the Middle East, 50.3 in Europe, 47.2 in North and East Asia [ 29 ], and 44.6 in Iran [ 30 ]. Our data was similar to these scores. There was a significant difference in ICON score between the Invisalign ® and bracket groups (59.4 ± 12.5 versus 65.6 ± 12.6, p = 0.002). According to Daniels et al. [ 22 ], the Invisalign ® group was classified as moderate complexity (51–63), whereas the bracket group was classified as difficult complexity (64–77). The components that influenced the different ICON scores of the two groups mostly arose from the aesthetic component (6.0 ± 1.3 versus 6.8 ± 1.2, p < 0.001). The aesthetic component was heavily weighted. The aesthetic assessment involved comparing the dentition to the illustrated scale, considering similar outcomes, including overjet, anterior crossbite, upper and lower incisor inclination, lip incompetence, and gingival display. Increasing numbers of patients are asking for clear aligner orthodontic treatments instead of conventional metal brackets because of their aesthetic appearance and reduced discomfort, and their benefits for oral hygiene maintenance. Based on a survey conducted by Meier et al. [ 2 ] about the characteristics of patients who were interested in Invisalign ® , 97% reported aesthetic considerations as their primary reason. Accordingly, we might assume that patients seeking Invisalign ® treatment were more concerned about aesthetics. This might be related to our findings that patients in the Invisalign ® group had significantly less severe aesthetic problems than those in the bracket group. In other words, the Invisalign ® group had a greater perception of attractiveness, especially in terms of a better smile, including dental and soft tissue harmony The aesthetic score in the ICON is more opinion-based and is influenced by bias in personal preference. The measurement of the Z angle and the distance of the lips to the Ricketts’ E-line provide more objective data to justify a pleasing facial profile. The lower lip to Ricketts’ E-line was 2.3 ± 2.9 mm on average for all patients in our study, in comparison to 1.7 mm in Chinese patients, − 0.3 mm in Japanese patients, 1 mm in Korean patients, and − 5.0 mm in Caucasian patients [ 21 ]. Taiwanese individuals were found to have a shorter nose but a thicker upper lip and chin than Caucasian individuals [ 31 ] through research involving different ethnic groups. Our patients showed a protrusive lower lip, which might be one of the reasons why they sought orthodontic treatment. Lip prominence is thought to be an unattractive trait and an unsatisfactory situation, particularly in adults [ 18 ]. In addition, the significantly more protrusive lower lip relating to the Ricketts’ aesthetic line in the bracket group, than in the Invisalign ® group, might coincide with the significant difference in aesthetic scores of the ICON between these two groups. The Ricketts’ E line was a reference line from the chin to the tip of the nose [ 18 ]. Thus, the difference between the two groups might be due to variations in the nose, lip, and chin. Protrusive incisors, a large overjet, inadequate lip length, lip thickness, the position of the chin, and the height of the nose, or a combination, might influence the relationship of the lower lip to the Ricketts’ E line [ 32 ]. Further investigations and measurements might be needed to analyze possible variables for differentiation between the two groups of patients The analytical data is valuable and is of importance to clinical practice. First, we found in this study that patients who were high-aesthetic demanding might have increased inten-

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Mouth, Daily, America, Win, Board, Samples, Care, Read, Main, Size, Area, Sample, Aid, Confidence, Take, Author, Goal, Proper, General, Small, Match]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 11 of 13 tions to obtain the clear aligner treatment. Instead of focusing on the occlusion, function, etc., the patients seeking the clear aligner treatment tended to take aesthetics as a primary treatment goal. Understanding a patient’s treatment goal is the cornerstone to achieving a satisfied treatment outcome. Second, in discussing more details regarding the components of aesthetics, as we mentioned earlier, this mainly represented the balance of the lower anterior face, including nose, mouth, teeth, lips, and chin. Smile improvement over the anterior area is an important motivator for those who seek orthodontic treatment [ 33 ]. However, aesthetics was very subjective, and it varied among different ages, genders, and races. The simulation of treatment outcome with the aid of the 3 D computer-aided design clear aligner technique helps to ensure the clinician and the patient both have the same perception of treatment outcome. In addition, the technology provides precisely customized modification, which helps to match a patient’s preference. Finally, the patients with increased intentions and performing behaviors were found to be significantly associated with visiting the orthodontist regularly and being more cooperative during orthodontic treatment [ 34 ]. Patient adherence and cooperation played decisive roles in the orthodontic treatment, when estimating treatment duration. In summary, this study compared the patient characteristics between the clear aligner and the bracket group. After realizing aesthetics was the main treatment objective of the patient, the clinician suggested focusing more on the balance of lower anterior face, especially anterior teeth. Proper achievement of the patient’s main concern might help to improve patient compliance and confidence, which were critical in the clear aligner treatment. Eventually, a win-win treatment result would be obtained The main limitation of this study was the small sample size, and the samples were only recruited from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, which might be insufficient to represent the general population in Taiwan. For example, nearly 35% of patients decided to have an aligner instead of brackets as an orthodontic appliance in our study, which was remarkably higher than <20% in North America and <10% worldwide [ 35 , 36 ]. Therefore, further studies with larger, more representative, samples are suggested to understand the clinical characteristics of orthodontic patients choosing clear aligners or metal brackets. Besides this, the overall well-being and oral hygiene habits, such as daily oral hygiene practice, could also influence patients’ choices of clear aligner or conventional metal bracket. Therefore, lacking the quality-of-life questionnaires and periodontal tissues examination are also limitations of our study 5. Conclusions Most of the orthodontic patients in this study were young females. Older patients showed more intention to choose Invisalign ® treatment for improving the appearance of their teeth than younger patients, who chose metal bracket treatment. The dental and skeletal malocclusions and facial patterns were similar in both groups. The demand for Invisalign ® aligner treatment for aesthetic reasons was substantial. A soft tissue profile with a more protrusive lower lip and more need for orthodontic treatment were found in the bracket group Author Contributions: Data collection and manuscript writing T.-H.L.; Data analysis J.C.-C.F., I.-K.W and C.-S.H.; Patient care and management H.-L.C.; Study design and supervision H.-L.C. and T.-H.Y All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: This study was funded by research grants (CMRPG 3 L 1031, CORPG 3 M 0201, and CORPG 3 K 0193) from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan Institutional Review Board Statement: This prospective study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. The Institutional Review Board number assigned to the study was 201900197 B 0 Informed Consent Statement: Informed written consent was obtained from all patients involved in this study.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Press, Mohamadi, Lopez, Thai, Mcnamara, Vigil, Iacopino, Bader, Shelton, Hsu, Sci, Bonito, Gov, Pii, Negro, Downs, Part, Norton, Sharafi, Zhu, Oviedo, Sigler, Bradley, Vazquez, Alvarez, Cross, Mahmoodi, Mir, Moradi, Murphy, Socio, Dent, Flores, James, Nih, Cheng, Machado, Bmc]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 12 of 13 Data Availability Statement: The datasets used and analyzed for this study are available from the corresponding author upon request Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest References 1 Ke, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Zhu, M. A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies BMC Oral Health 2019 , 19 , 24. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 2 Meier, B.; Wiemer, K.B.; Miethke, R.-R. Invisalign ® —Patient Profiling J. Orofac. Orthop 2003 , 64 , 352–358. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 3 Djeu, G.; Shelton, C.; Maganzini, A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 2005 , 128 , 292–298. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 4 Pacheco-Pereira, C.; Brandelli, J.; Flores-Mir, C. Patient satisfaction and quality of life changes after Invisalign treatment Am. J Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 2018 , 153 , 834–841. [ CrossRef ] 5 Flores-Mir, C.; Brandelli, J.; Pacheco-Pereira, C. Patient satisfaction and quality of life status after 2 treatment modalities: Invisalign and conventional fixed appliances Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 2018 , 154 , 639–644. [ CrossRef ] 6 Machado, A.W. 10 commandments of smile esthetics Dent. Press J. Orthod 2014 , 19 , 136–157. [ CrossRef ] 7 Azaripour, A.; Weusmann, J.; Mahmoodi, B.K.; Peppas, D.; Gerhold-Ay, A.; Van Noorden, C.J.F.; Willershausen, B. Braces versus Invisalign ® : Gingival parameters and patients’ satisfaction during treatment: A cross-sectional study BMC Oral Health 2015 , 15 , 1–5. [ CrossRef ] 8 Downs, W.B. Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis Am. J. Orthod 1948 , 34 , 812–840 [ CrossRef ] 9 Tweed, C.H. The diagnostic facial triangle in the control of treatment objectives Am. J. Orthod 1969 , 55 , 651–667. [ CrossRef ] 10 Merrifield, L. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics Am. J. Orthod 1966 , 52 , 804–822. [ CrossRef ] 11 Burstone, C.J. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning Am. J. Orthod 1967 , 53 , 262–284. [ CrossRef ] 12 Burstone, C.J.; James, R.B.; Legan, H.; Murphy, G.A.; Norton, L.A. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery J. Oral. Surg 1978 , 36 , 269–277. [ PubMed ] 13 Steiner, C.C. Cephalometrics for you and me Am. J. Orthod 1953 , 39 , 729–755. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0002941653900827 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] 14 Steiner, C.C. Cephalometrics in clinical practice Angle. Orthod 1959 , 29 , 8–29. [ CrossRef ] 15 Sushner, N.I. A photographic study of the soft-tissue profile of the Negro population Am. J. Orthod 1977 , 72 , 373–385. [ CrossRef ] 16 Holdaway, R.A. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I Am. J. Orthod 1983 , 84 , 1–28. [ CrossRef ] 17 Holdaway, R.A. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II Am. J. Orthod 1984 , 85 , 279–293. [ CrossRef ] 18 Ricketts, R.M. A foundation for cephalometric communication Am. J. Orthod 1960 , 46 , 330–357. Available online: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002941660900476 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] 19 Ricketts, R.M. The value of cephalometrics and computerized technology Angle Orthod 1972 , 42 , 179–199 20 Hsu, B.S. Comparisons of the five analytic reference lines of the horizontal lip position: Their consistency and sensitivity Am. J Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 1993 , 104 , 355–360. [ CrossRef ] 21 Gu, Y.; McNamara, J.A.; Sigler, L.M.; Baccetti, T. Comparison of craniofacial characteristics of typical Chinese and Caucasian young adults Eur. J. Orthod 2010 , 33 , 205–211. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 22 Daniels, C.; Richmond, S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (icon) J. Orthod 2000 , 27 , 149–162 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 23 Whitesides, J.; Pajewski, N.M.; Bradley, T.G.; Iacopino, A.M.; Okunseri, C. Socio-demographics of adult orthodontic visits in the United States Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 2008 , 133 , 489.e 9–489.e 14. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S 088954060701253 X (accessed on 27 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] 24 Laothong, W.; Cheng, H.-C. Comparison of factors affecting orthodontic treatment motivation of Taiwanese and Thai patients in two hospitals J. Dent. Sci 2017 , 12 , 396–404. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 199179021 7300697 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 25 Moradi, G.A.; Mohamadi Bolbanabad, A.; Moinafshar, H.; Adabi, M.; Sharafi Zareie, B. Evaluation of oral health status based on the decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft) index Iran. J. Public Health 2019 , 48 , 2050–2057. [ CrossRef ] 26 Dental Caries (Tooth Decay) in Adults (Age 20 to 64). Available online: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/ dental-caries/adults (accessed on 19 May 2022) 27 Aivarez-Arenal, A.; Alvarez-Riesgo, J.A.; Lopez, J.; Vazquez, J.; Vigil, M.A.V. DMFT and treatment needs in adult population of Oviedo, Spain Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol 1996 , 24 , 17–20. [ CrossRef ] 28 Bader, J.D.; Shugars, D.A.; Bonito, A.J. A Systematic Review of the Performance of Methods for Identifying Carious Lesions J. Public Health Dent 2002 , 62 , 201–213. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Law, Ferguson, Fogel, Kau, Mark, Agreement, Makki, Alhammadi, Abarca, Share, Janani, Christou, Market, Med, Farahani, Case, End]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 6569 13 of 13 29 AlHammadi, H.A.; Ferguson, D.J.; Makki, L. Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) in Dubai school-aged adolescents APOS Trends Orthod 2020 , 10 , 32–37. [ CrossRef ] 30 Borzabadi-Farahani, A.; Borzabadi-Farahani, A. Agreement between the index of complexity, outcome, and need and the dental and aesthetic components of the index of orthodontic treatment need Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 2011 , 140 , 233–238 [ CrossRef ] 31 Chen, H.-L. Profile angle defines soft tissue chin position in adults Taiwan. J. Orthod 2014 , 26 , 4–13. [ CrossRef ] 32 Ricketts, R.M. Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation Am. J. Orthod 1968 , 54 , 272–289. Available online: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0002941668902789 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] 33 Christou, T.; Abarca, R.; Christou, V.; Kau, C.H. Smile outcome comparison of Invisalign and traditional fixed-appliance treatment: A case-control study Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop 2020 , 157 , 357–364. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S 0889540619309072 (accessed on 27 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 34 Fogel, J.; Janani, R. Intentions and behaviors to obtain invisalign J. Med. Mark 2010 , 10 , 135–145. [ CrossRef ] 35 Clear Aligner Usage Survey. Available online: Https://orthodonticproductsonline.Com/treatment-products/aligners/clearaligner-usage-survey-2012-02-04/ (accessed on 19 May 2022) 36 Clear Aligners Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysism by Patient Age Group(Teenager, and Adults), by End- User (Hospitals, and Dental & Orthodontic Clinics), and Regional Forecast, 2021–2028. Available online: Https://www. Fortunebusinessinsights.Com/industry-reports/clear-aligners-market-101377 (accessed on 27 April 2022).