Trial reportJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2021
Evaluation of effectiveness and stability of aligner treatments using the Peer Assessment Rating Index.
Trial report in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal Changes in Occlusal Outcomes and Case Complexity with InvisalignDentistry journal · 2026Article
- Clear aligner therapy: a scoping review of treatment prediction, clinical effectiveness, and limitations.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Orthodontic aligner therapy outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorder.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparison of relapse of orthodontic treatment following aligner versus conventional fixed appliance treatment. A systematic review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Orthodontic aligners: between passion and science.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Review
- Influence of Post-Processing on the Degree of Conversion and Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Polyurethane Aligners.Polymers · 2023Article
- Treatment planning protocols with the Invisalign appliance: an exploratory survey.The Angle orthodontist · 2023Article
- [Comparison of the outcome of orthodontic dental movement using aligners versus fixed orthodontics: a review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aims of this study were to measure treatment effects of aligner treatments in adult patients directly after treatment and the stability of these effects after a short-term retention period using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index.
methodsThis double-center trial consecutively screened 98 adult patients of whom 33 patients were treated according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study sample was shown to be representative for adult orthodontic reality with regard to gender, age, and distribution of malocclusion type. Malocclusion severity was rated by using the PAR Index measured at baseline (T0), after finishing orthodontic treatment with Invisalign® (T1; Align Technology Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) and after a mean retention period of 10 months (T2). Furthermore, to better understand the observed treatment modality, specific treatment characteristics were recorded and analyzed.
resultsThe average PAR score at T0 was 22.18 (standard deviation [SD] ± 8.68). Posttreatment PAR score was 4.64 (SD ± 4.23) at T1 and was stable after a retention period of 10.07 months at T2 (SD ± 126.80 days; PAR 4.36, SD ± 3.93). All of the study cases showed a significant reduction of the total PAR score between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001), but no further difference between T1 and T2 (PAR 4.64 vs. 4.36). Cases were either classified 'improved' (n = 23) or 'greatly improved' (n = 10); no case was classified into the third PAR Index category 'worse or no different'. On average, 72 aligners (SD ± 22) with 12 attachments per treatment (SD ± 4) were used to align teeth. Six patients needed a case refinement with a mean of 23 (SD ± 8) further aligners. The maximum number of needed ClinCheck® (Align Technology Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) treatment plan revisions was 18 (mean 7, SD ± 4).
conclusionThe detected improvement rate indicated a good standard of orthodontic treatment using aligners. Treatment effects were stable throughout a short-term retention period using a specific retention protocol. Effectiveness and stability were equally achieved in mild, moderate, and rather severe cases within this consecutive sample. A critical focus should be placed on accurate treatment planning in order to make tooth movements predictable, realistic, and stable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.