ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparison of efficacy and accuracy of tooth movements in optimized and conventional attachments of clear aligners - A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07215598 (Accuracy of Invisalign Attachments), which is not on this 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.
Accuracy of Invisalign Attachments: A Split-Mouth Comparative Study of Optimized and Conventional Designs
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Assessment of Dimensional Accuracy and Fit of Aligners Manufactured by Direct Printing and Thermoforming: AnTurkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Efficiency of In-House Clear Aligners in Limited Orthodontic Treatment.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Clinical trends and utilization of clear aligner therapy among specialist orthodontists in Iran.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Clear aligner therapy: a scoping review of treatment prediction, clinical effectiveness, and limitations.Frontiers in dental 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and accuracy of optimized versus conventional attachments in clear aligner treatment using Invisalign. Materials and methods: Adhering to the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis' (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines Results: Most of the studies included showed a good methodological quality with a low risk of bias. No significant differences in the accuracy of tooth movement between conventional attachments and optimized attachments were noted for canine derotation, anterior extrusion, and root angulation changes in canine, premolar, and molar (p > 0.05). The studies however exhibited high heterogeneity (I Conclusion: There was a non-significant difference in accuracy between optimized and conventional attachments for most orthodontic movements. While optimized attachments may offer improved control for specific movements like upper lateral incisor rotation, and conventional attachments potentially enhance anterior extrusion, their overall superiority remains inconclusive. Further high-quality research is needed to validate the hypothesized biomechanical advantages of optimized attachments.
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.