ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use of Clear Aligners by General Dentists in Australia.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who underwent clear aligner therapy: A multicenter cohort study.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Pediatric mainstream clear-aligner early orthodontic orders in Guangdong public tertiary hospitals: service patterns, service-duration tiers and order conversion.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Orthodontic Retention Practices and Opinions Among General Dental Practitioners in Australia.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Clear aligner therapy among orthodontists in Turkey: practice patterns and comparison with previously reported Iranian findings.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical trends and utilization of clear aligner therapy among specialist orthodontists in Iran.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Medico-Legal Implications and Risk Management Strategies in Orthodontic Practice: An Analytical Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Scoping Review of the Quality of Orthodontic Information on YouTube.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2025Article
- A 3D dental model dataset with pre/post-orthodontic treatment for automatic tooth alignment.Scientific data · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe primary aim of the investigation was to survey clear aligner therapy (CAT) use among general dentists in Australia. A secondary aim was to evaluate the factors that influenced general dentists in Australia not to provide CAT. MATERIAL AND
methodsGeneral dentists registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency were invited to participate in a structured cross-sectional electronic survey. The survey covered demographics, preferred CAT systems and practices, relevant treatment planning and retention protocols, patient-reported CAT issues, pertinent respondent opinions, and reasons for not providing CAT. Descriptive statistics were computed via GraphPad Prism v10 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).
resultsMost of the 264 (n = 172; 65.2%) respondents indicated that they provided CAT. The majority (n = 82; 58.6%) reported that they treated between 1 and 20 patients with CAT annually. Invisalign was the most used system (n = 83; 61.2%), with 55 (41.7%), indicating that they used more than one system. Most (n = 124; 98.4%) were comfortable using CAT for mild crowding, whereas 73.4% (n = 94) were not comfortable in treating severe crowding with CAT. The median (IQR) number of patients per respondent treated with extraction of a permanent incisor or premolar was 0 (0). Issues regarding tooth positions were reportedly always or mostly in need of change in the initial treatment plan by 68.7%. Problems regarding patient compliance with CAT wear protocols (n = 67; 45.6%) and the predictability of treatment outcomes (n = 31; 21.1%) were the most identified themes of the free-text comments. Over 80% of those who did not provide CAT indicated that they preferred to refer to an orthodontist for management.
conclusionAlmost two-thirds of the respondents provided CAT. Invisalign was the most used system. The majority use CAT combined with nonextraction treatment. Most of those who did not provide CAT preferred to refer to an orthodontist for patient management.
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.