ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2024
Evaluating the efficacy and predictability of distalization protocols for maxillary molars in Class II treatment with clear Aligners: A narrative review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes of Sequential Distalization with Clear Aligners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Predictability of Sequential Distalization of the Upper Arch Using InvisalignDentistry journal · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Effectiveness and Predictability of Maxillary Molar Distalization with Clear Aligner Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clear aligner therapy (CAT) has become a popular orthodontic treatment option for adolescent and adult patients for its aesthetic, patient's comfort, and convenient features. It involves a programmed and simulated virtual planning, tracking, and quantifying of tooth movement to target positions. Over the years, the therapeutic scope of CAT has increased dramatically to include a wider range of malocclusions with the aid of orthodontic auxiliaries as adjunctive biomechanics. This narrative review aims at summarizing and evaluating current practices, efficacy and predictability of sequential distalization protocol for maxillary molars in class II treatment using CAT. Methods: A systematic search for this review included electronic literature databases of MEDLINE via Pubmed, Web of Science, ProQuest and Embase to include all available published articles including systematic reviews, books, cases reports, and narrative literature reviews. Results: Most published studies are retrospective examining small sample size. Current literature should be interpreted carefully as studies differ in their outcome measurement process and timing. Although reports show 2-3 mm of molar distalization is possible, a distinguish between bodily movement and molar tip back should be made. There is a discrepancy between computer-assisted predicted outcome and actual clinical outcome reported in literature. Conclusion: Molar distalization using CAT is possible. However, randomised trials with large sample size are necessary to draw more definitive conclusion about its efficacy and predictability. Due to the discrepancy between computer-assisted predicted outcome and actual clinical outcome, case refinement and possible altered treatment duration should be discussed with the patient in the planning stage. Since the process of molar distalization using CAT involves undesirable reaction force, it is essential to reinforce anchorage with suitable auxiliaries like composite attachments, class II/III elastics, and TADs.
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.