Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2022
Differences in finished case quality between Invisalign and traditional fixed appliances.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials.European journal of orthodontics · 2024Pooled it
- Duration of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners versus fixed appliances in crowding cases: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison between clear aligners and 2 × 4 mechanics in the mixed dentition: a randomized clinical trial.The Angle orthodontist · 2023Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Modified Vacuum-Formed Aligners Versus Conventional Micro-Implant Anchorage in Molar Intrusion for Pre-Restorative Orthodontics.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Article
- Retention of orthodontic aligners with different gingival margin designs on three-dimensionally printed models representing varying degrees of marginal tissue recession.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Clear aligner therapy: a scoping review of treatment prediction, clinical effectiveness, and limitations.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- How clinical experience shapes Turkish orthodontists' approaches to clear aligner treatment: a cross-sectional survey.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effect of aging and mechanical brushing on color stability and translucency of three-dimensionally printed and thermoformed aligners of different thicknesses.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Indications and limits of clear aligner therapy: an international modified Delphi consensus study.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Review
- Effectiveness and Clinical Indications of 2 × 4 Fixed Orthodontic Therapy in Regard to Mixed Dentition: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Temporary Anchorage Devices in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Parental knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding malocclusion in preschool children.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- An Evaluation of the Estimated Aligners Needed to Correct Malocclusion Traits Using Invisalign ClinCheck™ Pro Software: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative assessment of the clinical outcomes of clear aligners compared to fixed appliance in class II malocclusion.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Long-term Outcomes of Traditional Braces versus Invisalign in Orthodontic Treatment.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Clear aligner therapy practice among orthodontists in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: A cross-sectional survey of the British Orthodontic Society membership.Journal of orthodontics · 2024Article
- Comparison of relapse of orthodontic treatment following aligner versus conventional fixed appliance treatment. A systematic review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the treatment and posttreatment effects of Invisalign aligners that incorporated SmartForce features and attachments to traditional fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized controlled trial included 66 patients, 32 aligners, and 34 fixed-appliance patients. The median ages of the aligner and braces patients were 26.7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9.8) and 25.9 (IQR: 16.6) years, respectively. Pretreatment occlusion was assessed using the ABO Discrepancy Index. Posttreatment (T1) and 6-month retention (T2) occlusions were quantified using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) scores.
resultsThe braces group finished treatment significantly (P < .001) earlier (0.4 years) than the aligner group. The median DI scores for the aligner and braces groups were 4.5 and 7.0, respectively, which was a statistically significant (P = .015), but clinically insignificant, difference. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the total OGS scores or any of the individual component scores at debond (T1) or after 6 months of retention (T2). During the posttreatment period, alignment and overjet worsened significantly in the aligner group, while buccolingual inclinations and occlusal relations improved. Over the same period, alignment worsened in the braces group and buccolingual inclinations improved. There was no statistically significant between-group difference in posttreatment changes of the total OGS scores.
conclusionsWhile patients with simple malocclusions require 4.8 months longer treatment times with aligners than traditional braces, the treatment and 6-month posttreatment occlusal outcomes are similar.
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.