## 4 Discussion  
Invaslign and ClinCheck software were adopted in the current study for its acceptance and prevalence among practitioners. The findings of this study coincide with previous research in that the predictions in ClinCheck software significantly overpredict orthodontic tooth movement. This was evident in both angular control and bodily intrusion, where clinical expression was significantly less than predictions made in ClinCheck. The current study showed a mean bodily intrusion of only 9.5% of that of the software prediction, a finding similar to that in the study by [PERSON] et al. [7], where lower incisor intrusion was under expressed clinically. An analogous result was seen with angular control, where the planned correction that was achieved was 17.2% for IMPA, 12% for L1-NB, and 26.3% for L1-APo. Despite the lack of homogeneity between clinical expression and software prediction, OB and OJ were both significantly improved following CAT. This finding would suggest that significant improvement of deep bite can still be achieved with CAT and is a result of cumulative tooth movements outside of the variables evaluated in this study. In the current study, as well as previous research, overcorrection of malocclusions in pre-treatment software planning is indicated, as only a fraction of planned movements are achieved clinically [19; 20]. This approach may allow for final tooth positions following CAT to more closely parallel ideal desired tooth positions. A more comprehensive study is needed to fully understand the required percent of overcorrection of all desired tooth movements using CAT. The current study, unlike previous research, has also investigated and compared the efficacy of CAT in both growing and non-growing populations in terms of variables related to anterior deep bite correction. All parameters of tooth movement were assessed collectively within the patient population, as well as individually within the growing and non-growing subgroups. The results of the current study failed to show statistical differences in any of the tooth movement variables included in this study. Angular control and bodily lower incisor intrusion were comparable for both the growing and non-growing groups. This \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Comparison**} & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ClinCheck–Clinical Expression**} & **Mean Difference** & **SE** & **t** & \(p\) **Tukey** \\ \hline ClinCheck L1 Intrusion mm & T2-T1 Centroid C point & 2.4 & 0.263 & 9.14 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline ClinCheck L1 Proclination & T2-T1 L1 to NB\({}^{\circ}\) & 2.77 & 1.14 & 2.42 & 0.019 \\ \hline ClinCheck L1 Proclination & T2-T1 L1 to A-Po\({}^{\circ}\) & 2.58 & 0.865 & 2.98 & 0.004 \\ \hline ClinCheck L1 Proclination & T2-T1 L1 IMPA\({}^{\circ}\) & 2.88 & 0.96 & 2.99 & 0.004 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Age Category Comparison} & & & & \\ \hline Non-growing (intrusion)mm & Growing (intrusion)mm & 0.232 & 1.60 & 0.144 & 0.886 \\ \hline Non-growing (L1 to NB\({}^{\circ}\)) & Growing (L1 to NB\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.978 & 1.76 & 0.557 & 0.58 \\ \hline Non-growing (L1 to A-Po\({}^{\circ}\)) & Growing (L1 to A-Po\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)0.552 & 1.55 & \(-\)0.356 & 0.723 \\ \hline Non-growing (IMPA\({}^{\circ}\)) & Growing (IMPA\({}^{\circ}\)) & 0.232 & 1.60 & 0.144 & 0.886 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of ClinCheck predictions and clinical expression and between study groups using repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test. study demonstrated comparable outcomes across both growing and non-growing groups, highlighting the potential effectiveness of CAT in diverse patient demographics [19]. In summary, this study sheds light on the critical role of Invisalign and ClinCheck software in contemporary orthodontic practice, particularly in the context of correcting anterior deep bite.