ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2024
Descriptive analysis of the cases published in the Align® Global Gallery.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSocial media enhanced access to information, making it easier to share dental treatments.
objectiveThis study aimed to conduct a descriptive analysis of the clinical cases published on the Align® Global Gallery platform. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study of 1,582 cases was conducted, data extracted referred to the following basic information: case number; patient's age; reported gender; Invisalign® package modality; treatment time; aligner exchange protocol; total number of aligners per arch; type of retainers, and inclusion of initial and final panoramic and cephalometric radiographs.
resultsThe majority were young (mean age 24.6 years, SD = 11.6), female patients (69.1%) with Class I malocclusion (39.4%) and crowding (77.9%). Comprehensive treatment was common (66.5%), with an average treatment time of 18 months (SD = 8.56; 95% CI = 17.6-18.5), with the most frequently reported aligner exchange protocol being 7 days (49.5%), with an average of 50.6 aligners in the upper arch (SD = 26.9; 95% CI = 49.2-51.9), and 48.7 in the lower arch (SD = 26.1; 95% CI = 47.4-50.0). Arch expansion (66.9%) and interproximal reduction (59.7%) were common approaches, while extractions were rare (4.3%). In most cases, initial lateral cephalometric (80.4%) and panoramic (93.3%) radiographs were presented. However, the final radiograph count dropped, with lateral cephalometric at 69.2%, and panoramic at 82.2% of cases.
conclusionCases in the Align®Global Gallery mostly feature Class I patients with crowded teeth, treated with expansion and interproximal reduction. The absence of standardized information and post-treatment data restricts the applicability of these findings to broader Invisalign® treatment trends.
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.