SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Root resorption caused by aligners, self-ligating appliances, and conventional fixed appliances: a CBCT-based meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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.
- Comparison of external apical root resorption in maxillary anterior teeth following en-masse versus two-step retraction: a 3D volumetric CBCT-based randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Resorption of roots in conventional braces versus advanced aligners: A comparative study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Assessing root resorption incidence in clear aligner versus fixed orthodontic appliance using CBCT.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Article
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
backgroundOrthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) is a common adverse effect of orthodontic treatments. Radiographs are routinely used to diagnose OIIRR; however, 3-dimensional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) studies have recently been conducted to assess hard tissue loss more accurately. There is controversial evidence of differences between aligners and fixed appliances in terms of OIIRR. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the differences in OIIRR between fixed appliances and aligners based on recent CBCT-based studies.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted after PROSPERO registration. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus) were systematically screened to identify studies reporting on (P) patients with full permanent dentition treated with (I) aligners or (C) fixed orthodontic appliances that reported on (O) root resorption detected by CBCT, without any date or language restrictions. Exclusion criteria included incomplete dentition, root canal treatment, dental trauma, previous root resorption, and developmental abnormalities. Means and mean differences were used as effect size measures, Chi-squared tests for subgroup differences, and I
resultsThe meta-analysis included five studies with 334 participants. Data on upper incisors were sufficient for analysis. Differences in OIIRR between aligners and fixed appliances did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05), and neither group presented clinically relevant OIIRR (< 1 mm). A moderate to high risk of bias was present. DISCUSSION: All treatment modalities caused similar, clinically irrelevant levels of OIIRR in the investigated population. The treatment modality should be selected based on biomechanics, expected outcomes, and individual preferences. Clinicians should not prioritize aligners over fixed appliances in the non-risk population in fear of OIIRR. The results should be interpreted cautiously due to the risk of bias and heterogeneity. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023481411.
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.