ReviewDental research journal2024
Clear aligner therapy versus conventional brackets: Oral impacts over time.
Review in Dental research journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dietary changes in patients with clear aligners compared with fixed orthodontic appliances during the early stages of orthodontic treatment: A systematic review.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Study Regarding the Efficacy of NuvolaDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Orthodontic Treatment with Fixed Appliances Versus Aligners: An Experimental Study of Periodontal Aspects.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Oral Prevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of treatment with orthodontic aligners on the oral health-related quality of lifeBMC oral health · 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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective is to compare the impact of clear aligner treatment (CAT) versus conventional fixed appliance treatment (FAT) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among adults at five-time points: pretreatment (T0), 1 week (T1), 1 month after (T2), and 6 months after (T3) treatment initiation, and in the long-term follow-up (T4). Materials and Methods: Search terms were based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH. Potentially eligible studies compared OHRQoL in clear aligner (CA) and fixed appliance (FA) patients. In February 2023, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and PubMed were searched for published studies. Nine out of 94 shortlisted papers were eligible for a systematic review. Of these nine papers, five studies were considered for a meta-analysis. Results: At T0, CA and FA patients had similar oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 questionnaire scores with a standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.105 (confidence interval [CI]: -1.029-1.48). The SMD of the OHRQoL related to T1, T2, and T3 was -3.119 (CI: -0.145, 0.355), -1.527 (CI: -5.597, -0.64), and - 2.331 (CI: -1.906, -1.148). T4 showed no difference between groups (SMD = 0.007, CI: CI: -4.286, -0.376). Regarding the OHIP-14 domains, functional limitations remained consistent in both groups across all time intervals. Psychological discomfort exhibited a notable difference only at T2. Throughout the treatment, CAT showed significantly lower levels of physical, psychological, and social disability, as well as handicap, though these differences did not persist beyond T4. Notably, physical pain was the sole domain that remained elevated in the FAT group up to T4. Conclusion: During the 1
Indexed as
Identifiers
38425319PMC10899161W4391354997What 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.