ReviewJournal of orthodontic science2024
Efficacy of clear aligner therapy over conventional fixed appliances in controlling orthodontic movement: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthodontic science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forces and Moments Generated by Thermoforming Aligners and Direct-Printed Aligners: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Potential Cytotoxicity of Orthodontic Aligners in the Oral Environment: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Clinical Success of Clear Aligners for Rotational Tooth Movements in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Prediction of overbite improvement in deep bite correction using clear aligner therapy.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of smart and traditional braces in orthodontic treatment efficiency.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Efficiency of clear aligners with nickel titanium wires for treating mandibular incisor crowding.Bioinformation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the current systematic review was to answer the clinical research question "Is Clear Aligner Therapy (CAT) effective in controlling the orthodontic movement?" by bringing together the most up-to-date information about the available evidence for CAT. METHODOLOGY: On January 1, 2023, a search was conducted in PubMed, ERIC, Embase, and CINHAL for any research papers published in the previous 10 years that provided an overview of the PICO questions. Both the titles and abstracts of the selected studies were evaluated independently by two different authors, and if there was any disagreement between the two review authors, a third reviewer was brought in to settle it.
resultsAmong included studies, three were retrospective non-randomized and two studies were prospective randomized clinical trials. Various authors reported better outcome for fixed orthodontic appliances than for clear aligner treatment (CAT) in relation to mandibular incisor proclination. The mean objective grading system score was better for braces (17) than for CAT (12) with no clinically significant difference, while staging had a significant impact on treatment efficacy.
conclusionThe results of this study suggest that clear aligners may be an effective alternative to traditional braces, but more research is needed to confirm these findings and determine the optimal size of future prospective studies evaluating this treatment.
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.