SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
Space closure after premolar extraction using clear aligners: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of clear aligner treatment (CAT) in space closure following premolar extraction (SCaPE) and its resistance to unwanted tooth movement remain uncertain. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy, predictability, and resistance to unwanted tooth movement by CAT for SCaPE.
methodsPre-post studies, randomized, and non-randomized clinical trials were included. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases up to November 12, 2024. Study quality was assessed using ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Three independent reviewers performed data extraction. A meta-analysis compared predicted versus achieved maxillary tooth movements in similar studies using the Invisalign
resultsFourteen studies encompassing 510 participants were included. Four studies had a low risk of bias, while ten had a high risk of bias. The results from pre-post studies indicated that CAT was significantly less effective than predicted in achieving Anterior Teeth Retraction (SPD= -0.87; 95% CI = -1.15 to -0.60; 95% PI= -1.14 to -0.59; p < 0.001; number of studies = 4), resulting in more lingual tipping (SPD = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.73; 95% PI= -1.01 to 3.19; p = 0.001; number of studies = 3) and extrusion of anterior teeth (SPD = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29; 95% PI= -0.16 to 1.92; p < 0.001; number of studies = 4) than predicted. The achieved distal tipping of canine (SPD = 1.42; 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.51; 95% PI= -2.5 to 5.40; p = 0.009; number of studies = 3) and mesial tipping of first molars (SPD = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.20; 95% PI = 0.34 to 3.01; p < 0.001; number of studies = 3;) were also greater than predicted. Clinical trials comparing CAT and fixed appliances provide limited evidence.
conclusionThe findings suggest that CAT may not be effective or predictable for SCaPE due to its limited capacity to promote the bodily movement of the teeth and control anchorage. Evidence indicates that fixed appliances might be superior to CAT. Limitations of the evidence include bias across studies, with the certainty of evidence ranging from low to very low. Future research should focus on improving prediction models and exploring the potential benefits of accessories to enhance CAT's effectiveness. REGISTRATION: Not registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40892106What 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.