Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2025
Patient compliance with braces vs. Invisalign®: a secondary data analysis from a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying Root Resorption on the Incisors After Clear Aligner and Fixed Appliance Therapy Using Artificial Intelligence Tool Based CBCT Surface Models: Randomized Clinical Trial.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Trial
- Factors Influencing the Predictability and Success of Invisalign Aligners: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of orthodontic treatment depends on several factors that may influence the desired outcome, such as patient motivation and cooperation.
objectiveThis study compared patient compliance during the first year of orthodontic treatment using aligners and conventional fixed appliances. METHODOLOGY: The sample included 39 participants (22.1±4.62 years, 25 males, 14 females) randomized into two groups: orthodontic aligners (OA, 20 patients, 23.7±5.6 years, 12 males, 8 females) and fixed appliances (FA, 19 patients, 20.5±4.5 years, 12 males, 7 females). Patient compliance was measured using the Orthodontic Patient Cooperation Scale (OPCS) composed of 10 questions related to attitudes and attendance of patients in relation to treatment. The questionnaire was applied at three different points: at 3 months (T1), at 6 months (T2), and at 12 months (T3) of treatment. The psychosocial profile of the patients was assessed using the anxiety (IDATE) and stress (PSS-14) questionnaires. Both groups were comparable in age, gender and psychosocial profile. Compliance comparisons between groups at T1, T2 and T3, as well as between genders, were performed using the Mann-Whitney test. Comparison between T1, T2 and T3 were performed using the Friedman test. The correlation between age and compliance scores was assessed using the Spearman's correlation coefficient. The psychosocial profile was analyzed using the Independent t-test. All tests considered p<0.05.
resultsThe type of appliance (OA or FA) and the time of assessment did not significantly influence patient compliance. The age and gender of patients were not correlated with their degree of compliance. Patient compliance was similar in the first 12 months of treatment, regardless of the protocol used, the patient's gender and age.
conclusionsThe level of patient compliance with orthodontic treatment was not influenced by the type of appliance (conventional fixed appliances or aligners), nor by the patient's age or gender.
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.