ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2023
Dimensional changes in the palate associated with Invisalign First System: a pilot study.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of clear aligners for maxillary expansion in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of clear aligners treatment in growing patients: a systematic review.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative Evaluation of Transverse Maxillary Arch Changes in Mixed Dentition with Clear Aligners vs Conventional Maxillary Expanders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Sagittal and Vertical Changes After Aligner Versus Acrylic Splint Expansion in Mixed Dentition: A Prospective Trial.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Efficacy and stability of maxillary arch expansion with clear aligners versus conventional slow maxillary expanders in growing patients: A multicenter prospective cohort study.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparison of two virtual bracket removal workflows for orthodontic retainer fabrication: surface replacement versus surface reconstruction.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Skeletal and Dental-Alveolar Changes With Invisalign First Expansion System in the Mixed Dentition: A Retrospective Study.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Do treatment outcomes of clear aligners remain stable over time? A systematic review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Review
- Linear Geometric Analysis of Maxillary Expansion in Mixed Dentition: Rapid Palatal Expander Versus Invisalign First System.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Vertical and transverse treatment effects of Invisalign First system compared to Hyrax maxillary expanders with fixed appliances in mixed dentition patients.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- Evaluation of maxillary dimensional changes in the mixed dentition: clear aligners vs acrylic expanders.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- Predictability of expansion movements performed by clear aligners in mixed dentition in both arches: a retrospective study on digital casts.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Orthodontic Aligners: Current Perspectives for the Modern Orthodontic Office.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
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 palatal dimensions and molar inclinations after Invisalign First System (IFS) to those in patients treated with slow maxillary expansion (SME) and normal controls. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-three mixed dentition patients treated with IFS were gender- and dental age-matched to another two groups: Haas-type SME and control group. The intercanine width (ICW), intermolar width (IMW), palatal surface area (SA), volume (V), and first molar buccolingual inclinations (MI) were measured before (T1) and after (T2) treatment. Analysis of variance was used to compare the differences among the three groups.
resultsThe ICW increased significantly by 3.10 mm after IFS, 4.77 mm with SME, and 0.54 mm in controls; the difference among the groups was statistically significant (P < .001). The IMW increased by 1.95 mm in IFS, 4.76 mm in SME, and 0.54 mm in controls, with significant intra- and intergroup differences. Palatal SA and volume increased by 43.50 mm2 and 294.85 mm3 in the IFS group, which differed significantly from SME, but was similar to controls. The right and left MI increased 0.24° and 0.08° buccally, respectively, in the IFS group, which was comparable to controls, while significantly increased buccal MI was observed in the SME group.
conclusionsIFS expands the upper arch with increased ICW and IMW compared to controls, but the expansion amount is smaller than SME. Unlike SME, IFS has no effects on palatal dimensions and molar inclinations.
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.