ReviewCureus2025
The Effectiveness of Clear Aligners Versus Fixed Aligners in Malocclusion Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malocclusion is one of the most significant dental issues that interferes with daily life activities. However, direct comparison between orthodontic treatment with clear aligners (CAs) and fixed aligners (FAs) is not yet established. We aimed to assess the impact of CA versus FA in patients with malocclusion. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until October 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of CA versus FA in malocclusion patients. The primary outcome of interest was the mean change of quality-of-health measures using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) survey, while secondary outcomes were mean change in pain levels and in the objective grading system (OGS). Continuous outcomes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random-effects model. Stata/MP (StataCorp LLC., College Station, Texas, United States) was used to analyse all outcomes. We included seven RCTs comprising 402 patients in the analysis. Patients treated with CA had better OGS scores in buccolingual inclination and marginal ridges domains compared to those treated with FA (SMD= 0.74, 95%CI: 0.28-1.2, p <0.001, and 0.42, 95%CI: 0.16-0.68, p <0.001). However, there were no significant differences in other studied outcomes. Malocclusion patients treated with CA had a better clinical profile compared to those treated with FAs. Further long-term RCTs with standard malocclusion types are needed.
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.