Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38725817›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024

A comparison of the upper anterior teeth movements with optimized and conventional attachment.

Tahara Hassanaly, Ana Rabal-Solans, María-Carmen Mediero-Pérez, Iván Nieto-Sánchez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clear Aligner Attachments: A Comprehensive Review.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tahara HassanalyDDS, MSc. Postgraduate Student, Alfonso X el Sabio University, Madrid, Spain.
Ana Rabal-SolansDDS, MSc. Private Practice, Madrid, Spain.
María-Carmen Mediero-PérezDDS, MSc, PhD. Assistant Professor, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Iván Nieto-SánchezDDS, MSc, PhD. Hospital Universitario San Rafael-Francisco de Vitoria University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Invisalign® attachments are divided into two main groups: the conventional group and the optimized group, which is also known as the SmartForce™. The aim of this study is to compare the movements produced by an optimized crescent-shaped attachment in superior incisor teeth with the movements produced by a conventional rectangular attachment (vertical and horizontal) in the same teeth. Material and Methods: This retrospective study examined the movement table of the initial ClinCheck® and the first refinement of 95 patients (mean age 44.18 ± 4.125, 40 males and 55 females). It represented 147 upper incisors divided into two groups: 87 with rectangular attachment and 60 with optimized attachment. Applying Kravitz's accuracy formula for each movement and each tooth of interest (with attachments of interest), we underlined the effectiveness of each attachment. Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used for statistical analysis. Results: The accuracies of rotation, mesio-distal angulation and vestibulo-lingual inclination are highly significantly related to the type of attachment used on the upper lateral incisor. The optimized attachment presented greater accuracy in the rotation of the lateral incisors than the conventional attachment. However, conventional vertical attachment showed a higher accuracy ( Conclusions: Optimized attachments rotate better lateral incisors; conventional vertical attachments are more efficient to improve mesio-distal angulation; and horizontal attachments serve best for torque movements.

Identifiers

PMID38725817
PMCPMC11078502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.