Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37128600›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Treatment Effectiveness of Clear Aligners in Correcting Complicated and Severe Malocclusion Cases Compared to Fixed Orthodontic Appliances: A Systematic Review.

Samer T Jaber, Mohammad Y Hajeer, Kinda Sultan

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07236775 (Evaluation of the Apical Root Resorption in Young Adults Caused by Orthodontic Treatment of Class I Severe Crowding Cases Using Clear Aligners Versus Traditional Fixed Appliances), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07236775 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of the Apical Root Resorption in Young Adults Caused by Orthodontic Treatment of Class I Severe Crowding Cases Using Clear Aligners Versus Traditional Fixed Appliances: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDamascus UniversityRan2019 to 2022Enrolled40ConditionsMalocclusion, Class I/II, Crowding, ToothArmsClear Aligners, Traditional fixed appliances
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Research advances in clear aligner].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samer T JaberDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Mohammad Y HajeerDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.
Kinda SultanDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Damascus, Damascus, SYR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to critically assess the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of clear aligners in the comprehensive treatment of complex cases accompanied by premolars extraction. An electronic literature search by two reviewers was independently done on 27 February 2023 in the following databases without time and language limitations: Pubmed®, Scoups®, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library database, Web of Science™, and Proquest Database Open. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any type, non-randomized clinical trials (CCT), cohort studies, and prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies were reviewed. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool for randomized trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies. After carefully searching the literature, six trials were included in this systematic review, three RCTs, two retrospective cohort studies, and one CCT. Two hundred eighty-three patients were included (186 females, 97 males). Three studies found that there were no differences between the clear aligners and fixed appliances when evaluations were done using the American Board of Orthodontists Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) or the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Two studies found that there were some differences between predicted and achieved tooth movements when clear aligners were used in premolars extraction cases. Based on the included studies, the duration of treatment was shorter with fixed appliances than the clear aligners when applied to orthodontic extraction cases. Both clear aligners and fixed appliances were found effective in the orthodontic treatment of premolar extraction-based cases. Fixed appliances have the advantage of achieving better buccolingual inclination and occlusal contacts in a shorter treatment duration. Treatment with clear aligners might be associated with differences between predicted and achieved tooth movements. Therefore, the characteristics of these techniques should be considered when making a treatment decision.

Indexed as

clear alignersclinical effectivenesscrowding of teetheffectivenessinvisalignorthodonticpremolar extractionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37128600
PMCPMC10148732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.