ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2025
A pilot study comparing virtual treatment setups among clear aligner companies.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis pilot study aims to compare virtual treatment setups provided by four different clear aligner companies, to assess how variations in features might impact treatment planning.
methodsInitial records of 10 patients were submitted to Invisalign®, ClearCorrect®, 3M™ Clarity™, and Spark™. Standardized case prescriptions ensured comparable treatment plans across companies. Comparisons focused on the number of aligners, number of attachments, interproximal reduction per arch, vertical movement of maxillary central incisors, final canine and molar relationships, intercanine and intermolar widths, and expansion or constriction of these widths.
resultsAmong the companies, significant differences were found in the number of aligners (p = 0.003), number of attachments (p< 0.001), and final canine relationship (p = 0.013). No statistical differences were observed for the other variables. ClearCorrect® prescribed the fewest number of aligners and attachments, while 3M™ Clarity™ prescribed the most. ClearCorrect® and Spark™ showed deficiencies in planning for bilateral canine Class I relationship.
conclusionsThe unique characteristics of each aligner company result in distinct approaches to treating the same patient, highlighting both areas of discrepancy and consistency in virtual treatment setups.
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.