ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021
Is remote monitoring a reliable method to assess compliance in clear aligner orthodontic treatment?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of dentalmonitoring's artificial intelligence in detecting aligner tracking issues: a retrospective multi-centric study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Predictability of maxillary dentoalveolar expansion with clear aligners in patients with mixed dentition.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- [Clinical efficacy of clear aligner treatment for pathologically migrated teeth in the anterior region of patients with severe periodontitis].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025Article
- Seeking orderness out of the orderless movements: an up-to-date review of the biomechanics in clear aligners.Progress in orthodontics · 2024Review
- Predictability and Effectiveness of NuvolaBiomedicines · 2023Article
- Wearable Orofacial Technology and Orthodontics.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Clear Aligner Therapy: Up to date review article.Journal of orthodontic science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data source and study design Retrospective cohort study using the data obtained from PlusDental - a Berlin-based health-tech companyCohort selection and data analysis Patients who completed clear aligner therapy (CAT) in 2019 were selected for this study. A digital-based app was utilised for analysing compliance among patients who underwent non-extraction orthodontic treatment with clear aligners. The sample included 2,644 adult orthodontic patients, three-fourths of them being women and one-fourth men. The primary outcome involved patient compliance, which was evaluated using a questionnaire in the app, completed by the patient. The questionnaire required patients to enter details about the aligner change date, daily wear time and pressure exerted by each aligner. The effect of variables including age, sex, previous orthodontic treatment and satisfaction with one's smile on compliance, were also analysed. Statistical analysis was performed using two-sided chi-square tests.Results Only 36% of the patient sample were fully compliant and poor compliance was exhibited by 25%. Authors observed that women were less compliant than men and patients with no prior orthodontic treatment were better compliant towards CAT. Also, patients treated with removable appliances exhibited better compliance among those who had a history of previous orthodontic treatment.Conclusions The authors concluded that non-compliant patients can be identified early, using their results as a guideline. This will help in timely intervention of addressing compliance issues during clear aligner orthodontic treatment.
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.