orthodontics In summary

Direct To Print Aligners,Will It Change Clear Aligner Therapy? 8 MINUTE SUMMARY
 
In this episode, I review direct-to-print alignersand how the material offers potential biomechanical advantages through itsmaterial properties when compared with conventional thermoplastic aligners. Theunique feature of force recovery of the material and current emerging evidence.The episode also explores the current limitations of the evidence base anddiscusses why, despite theoretical advantages, direct-to-print aligners havenot yet entered routine clinical practice. This podcast is based on a recent lectureby Jean-Marc Retrouvey.
 
Timestamp
00:27 – What are direct-to-print aligners?
01:10 – How do direct-to-print aligners deliver force?
02:39 – Push and pull forces and adaptation
03:58 – Reactivation with heat, unique force recovery
05:09 – Variable aligner thickness
07:08 – Why haven’t direct-to-print aligners changed aligner therapy yet?

 
 
Material photopolymer resins
 
Force delivery – Push and Pull
Engage with undercuts not possible with thermoformedaligners
o  Deliver forces to areas seen as non-engagedsurfaces
§ Non-engaged surface – greater displacement thanTFA (Hertan 2022)
 
Force delivery – Adaptation
·     Closer adaptation 20-30% more accurate 30um or 0.03mm (48 um Graphy Zendura, Essix Ace and DPA Koenig2022).
·     Uniform thickness
                                                                                            i.        TFA Non-uniform thickness – due thermal process, thinner areasend of aligner
                                                                                         ii.        TFA sharp distribution around attachment / transition
 
Force delivery material properties
·     TFA Stress relaxation – Reduce force with time,12 hours reduce 60%, DPA reduce to around 50%, but with recovery increase to75% Xu 2025
                                                                                            i.        Moment to force ratio more sustained for bodilymovement, in vitro study
 
 
·     Thickness customisation
o  Creating a force couple: 0.8 labial, Vs 0.5mmlingual , creating moment within the aligner
 
 
 
Direct to Print Aligners 2 types: Shape memory Vs Activememory
·      Similarclaims:
1.       Re-activate force recovery through heating inwater reactivation and reverse stress relaxation and creep
2.       Customise thickness, trimlines and auxiliaries
3.       Less attachments
4.       Speed of printing aligner
5.       Less wastage
 
·      Shapememory: Graphy 2019
1.       Transition temperature – low 45 degrees, from30-45 degrees = increase temperature = reduce force. Re-activates inside themouth to maintain properties. Choi 2025
 
·      Activememory LuxCreo 2022
1.       Transition temperature – high 60 degrees =maintain elasticity
2.       Re-activated with warm water  = restores mechanical properties
 
 
Challenges:
 
1.       Little clinical research to support biomechanicalsuperiority
2.       Loss of force from insertion Xu 2025 50% in 12hours
3.       Effectiveness seems camparable for mild to moderatecases:
a.       PAR change DPA 86%, refinement of 40% VanessaKnode 2025,
b.       PAR change TFA 88.9% Jaber 2022, refinement of 70-94%Ladewig 2005, Kravitz 2023
 
 
 
See Jean-Marc Retrouvey’s lecture in full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7fJmxgXHqU
 
Previous podcast on Direct To Print Aligners February2024
https://orthoinsummary.com/direct-to-print-aligners-are-they-really-different-to-normal-aligners-8-minute-summary/
 
#aligneronorthodontics
#directtoprint
#orthodontics
#orthodonticsinsummary
#Farooqahmed
#Orthodontics
#Luxcreo
#graphy
#clearalignertherapy

Has MARPE Found Its Place?
 
Join me for our first podcast of 2026 looking at Miniscrew AssistedExpansion, and where this treatment modality currently stands in clinicalpractice. With discussions of different designs (MSE Vs MARPE), rapid andslow activation protocols, orthopaedic effects, and predictors of success.   Thispodcast is a summary based on an excellent lecture from Angle-Net by DanieleCantarella and Benedict Wilmes.
 
01:18 – MSE vs MARPE designs: key differences
03:55 – Anchorage, bone quality, and force delivery
05:29 – Skeletal effects: parallel suture split and expansion amounts
06:42 – Asymmetry, resistance areas, and biomechanics
07:00 – Class III correction: where MARPE really adds value
09:26 – Rapid vs slow activation and what actually happens to bone
10:28 – Predicting success: age limits, failure rates, and when to considersurgery

#MARPE
#MSE
#expansion
#orthodontics
#orthodonticsinsummary
#Farooqahmed
#Orthodontics
#dentalpodcast
#orthodonticcommunity

Reflections on 20 years in Orthodontics | Orthodontics In Interview | BJÖRN LUDWIG

“We focused so much ontechnology that maybe we neglected diagnostics.”
 
“Anecdotal is inspiring,but we need evidence for the average orthodontist.”
 
“If we don’t protectacademic journals, orthodontics becomes vulnerable,  legally and professionally.”
 
“Orthodontics grows whenwe are open, critical, and enquiring.”
 
 
 
In this special episode, I’m joined by BjörnLudwig for a reflective conversation recorded during the few weeks of hispublic speaking career, as he brings his landmark Ortho 50 series to aclose. We look back on two decades of clinical practice, academic leadership,and contribution to the orthodontic community, and ask whether modernorthodontics has truly improved on the outcomes of the 1990s.
 
We discuss evidence versus clinicalexperience, the impact of technology on diagnosis and treatment planning, thepressures facing academic publishing, and the evolving role of key opinionleaders. Björn also speaks candidly about family, health, Oscar and legacy, andhis decision to step back from speaking in orthodontics, offering thoughtfulinsight into what really matters in an orthodontic career.
 
 
02:41 – Why is today’s orthodontics nobetter than the outcomes in the 1990s?
04:54 – How do we improve outcomes intoday’s clinical practice?
06:36 – Evidence vs experience: shouldwe trust trials or clinical experience?
09:13 – When research proves us wrong, howshould orthodontists respond?
11:19 – The role of your parents inshaping your orthodontic career
14:06 – As Editor-in-Chief of Kieferorthopädie,what changes have you seen over the last decade?
17:59 – Do Key Opinion Leaders help orharm orthodontics?
21:37 – Quick fire: proudest research, 3best clinical tools, and 3 biggest clinical regrets
27:52 – What advice would you give tothe next generation of orthodontists?
29:51 – Health, Ortho 50, and knowingwhen to step back
 
Click on the link below to view previous episodes, to refresh topics,pick up tricks and stay up to date.
 
 
Please like and subscribe if you find it useful!
 
#OrthodonticsInSummary
#BjörnLudwig
#Orthodontics
#ortho50
#TADs
#OrthodonticEvidence
#OrthodonticsInInterview
#FarooqAhmed
#OrthodonticBiomechanics
#OrthodonticResearch
#DentalEducation
 
Farooq Ahmed
 
🕒Timestamps of Key Questions & Answers

“Even though the panelistswere huge aligner users, the statements are not so in favour of aligners, they are surprisingly reasonable.”
 
“It’s very difficult to find a real aligner experts without a conflict of interest. Almost impossible.”
 
“If you explain the differences honestly, most of my extraction patients choose fixed appliances. I’m not selling aligners.”
 
“Direct printing is the real breakthrough, but right now it has too many shortcomings to be a standard technology.”
 
“I am pessimistic. We must fight for our profession — against the idea that technology can replace orthodontists.”
 

In this episode, I’m joined by Vincenzo D'Antò, lead author and contributing author of this year’s two major consensusstatements on clear aligners. We explore the key findings from these landmark papers and how they translate into real-world clinical practice. Vincenzo shares his own views on aligners, their limitations, and his pragmatic approach to integrating hybrid mechanics, particularly skeletal anchorage, into alignertreatment. We discuss recent innovations in aligner therapy, distinguishing those with genuine clinical value from those that are ineffective. We also hear Vincenzo’s candid concerns about the future of orthodontics.
 
 
03:00 – Why did youcreate this Delphi aligner consensus?
05:03 – How were thealigner experts selected for the study?
06:51 – Do conflictsof interest affect aligner consensus statements?
11:49 – Crowding: Whydoes the Alharfi 2025 SR show better outcomes for aligners?
15:49 – 7 vs 10 vs 14days: How often should patients change aligners?
20:03 – Are complexmovement failures a design flaw or inherent to aligners?
22:19 – What trulylimits clear aligner biomechanics?
25:46 – Is hybridorthodontics the future of predictable aligner treatment?
29:35 – What hybridmechanics do you use most in practice?
32:05 – Can wereliably treat extraction cases with aligners?
36:03 – Is betterOHRQoL worth compromised occlusal outcomes?
39:11 – Do alignerswork for growing patients, or is this just marketing?
41:34 – Why ishigh-quality aligner research still so weak?
44:30 – Final advice:What should orthodontists focus on for the future?
 
Click on the link below to view previous episodes, to refresh topics,pick up tricks and stay up to date.
 
 
Please like and subscribe if you find it useful!
 
Please visit the website for this interview podcast:
https://orthoinsummary.com/is-there-really-a-consensus-on-aligners-a-delphi-author-explains-orthodontics-in-interview-vincenzo-danto/
 
Spotify podcasts for other platforms
 
YouTube
https://youtu.be/jpMUbYINxzg
 
#OrthodonticsInSummary
#VINCENZOD'ANTO
#Orthodontics
#ClearAligners
#AlignerTherapy
#HybridOrthodontics
#SkeletalAnchorage
#TADs
#OrthodonticEvidence
#OrthodonticsInInterview
#FarooqAhmed
#VincenzoDAnto
#OrthodonticBiomechanics
#OrthodonticResearch
 
Farooq Ahmed
🕒Timestamps of Key Questions & Answers

Retention, What Should We Do Now?
 
Join me for a update on retention, I explore a review of currentliterature and what the changes are recommended to our retention protocols,research of stability,  critical look of retainerfailures and factors to consider in design and location of fixedretainers, as well as monitoring recommendations based on Clinical PracticeGuidelines. This podcast is based on recent literature as well as two excellentlectures from this year’s British Orthodontic Conference by Marie Cornelis(Australia) and Simon Littlewood (UK).
 
Recommendations for the maxilla:
·     Low risk of relapse = Removable retainer (polyethyleneor polyurethane)
·     High risk of relapse = Dual retention with fixedand removable retainers
·     Fixed retainer
o  3-3 if occlusion allows, most likely 2-2 designunless high risk of canine relapse
o  Location slightly gingival due to occlusalforces and account for Increase in overbite with age (Littlewood)
 
 
 
Recommendations for the mandible
Lower arch
o  Low risk of relapse = fixed retainers
o  High risk of relapse = dual arch
o  Fixed retainer 3-3
§ Position slightly incisal Mandible: slightlymore incisal, greater cleanability, less gingival inflammation  – Petsos 2023
 
Monitoring regime
·     1 month – fixed retainer (greatest timepoint offailure)
·     3 month – removable retainer (motivation ofcompliance)
·     Every 3-4 months Wouters 2018
·     1 year retention necessary  Wouters 2018
·     Annual check-up Wouters 2018
o  Greater likelihood of compliance if annualcheck-up
o  General dentist
 
Improve compliance
·     2/3rds stop wearing after 4 years,All-Moghrabi 2018
·     Visual photo of relapse to patient and parentsincreased compliance Vs patient only or instructions only Lin 2015 (1.5Hrsgreater wear)
 
                                                       
 
Clinical PracticeGuideline For Orthodontic Retention Wouters 2019 (open access paper)