Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025
Application of a 3D Fusion Model to Evaluate the Efficacy of Clear Aligner Therapy in Malocclusion Patients: Prospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Present and Future of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Orthodontics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Applications of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment planning of orthodontics: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- Application of a 3D fusion model to evaluate the efficacy of clear aligners: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- AI-enhanced 3D tooth movement forecasting in clear aligner therapy using deep morphometric modelling: A prospective validation study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvestigating the safe range of orthodontic tooth movement is essential for maintaining oral and maxillofacial stability posttreatment. Although clear aligners rely on pretreatment digital models, their effect on periodontal hard tissues remains uncertain. By integrating cone beam computed tomography-derived cervical and root data with crown data from digital intraoral scans, a 3D fusion model may enhance precision and safety.
objectiveThis study aims to construct a 3D fusion model based on artificial intelligence software that matches cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning data using the Andrews' Six Element standard. The model will be used to assess the 3D effects of clear aligners on tooth movement, to provide a reference for the design of pretreatment target positions.
methodsBetween May 2022 and May 2024, a total of 320 patients who completed clear aligner therapy at our institution were screened; 136 patients (aged 13-35 years, fully erupted permanent dentition and periodontal pocket depth <3 mm) met the criteria. Baseline ("simulation") and posttreatment ("fusion") models were compared. Outcomes included upper core discrepancy (UCD), upper incisors anteroposterior discrepancy (UAP), lower Spee curve deep discrepancy (LSD), upper anterior teeth width discrepancy (UAW), upper canine width discrepancy (UCW), upper molar width discrepancy (UMW), and total scores. Subanalyses examined sex, age stage (adolescent vs adult), and treatment method (extraction vs nonextraction).
resultsThe study was funded in May 2022, with data collection beginning the same month and continuing until May 2024. Of 320 initial participants, 136 met the inclusion criteria. Data analysis is ongoing, and final results are expected by late 2024. Among the 136 participants, 90 (66%) were female, 46 (34%) were male, 64 (47%) were adolescents, 72 (53%) were adults, 38 (28%) underwent extraction, and 98 (72%) did not. Total scores did not differ significantly by sex (mean difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.15; P=.85), age stage (mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.17; P=.60), or treatment method (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; P=.32). No significant differences were found in UCD (mean difference 0.001, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; P=.90) or UAP (mean difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00; P=.06) by treatment method. However, adolescents exhibited smaller differences in UCD, UAW, UCW, and UMW yet larger differences in UAP and LSD (df=134; P<.001). Extraction cases showed smaller LSD, UAW, and UCW but larger UMW differences compared with nonextraction (df=134; P<.001).
conclusionsThe 3D fusion model provides a reliable clinical reference for target position design and treatment outcome evaluation in clear aligner systems. The construction and application of a 3D fusion model in clear aligner orthodontics represent a significant leap forward, offering substantial clinical benefits while establishing a new standard for precision, personalization, and evidence-based treatment planning in the field.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2400094304, https://www.chictr.org.cn/hvshowproject.html?id=266090&v=1.0.
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.