ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Efficacy and Efficiency of In-House Clear Aligners in Limited Orthodontic Treatment.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of in-house digital software and fabrication of clear aligners. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analysed pre-treatment, predicted and post-treatment digital scans of 61 patients (42 females, 19 males) to assess the accuracy of predicted tooth movements. Planned and final scans were superimposed using best-fit analysis in Geomagic Design X (Hexagon AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Distoincisal (DI), mesioincisal (MI) and gingival zenith (Z) landmarks were measured perpendicularly from the mid-facial aspect, with differences < 0.5 mm deemed clinically acceptable. Data were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with logarithmic transformation, and clinically acceptable movements were compared between groups using generalised estimating equations (GEE).
resultsWhen evaluated individually, 91% of mandibular and 95% of maxillary landmarks showed clinically acceptable movement. When all three landmarks per tooth were below the threshold, 84% of mandibular and 88% of maxillary teeth met this criterion. At the case level, 48% of mandibular and 50% of maxillary cases achieved overall clinically acceptable movement. The greatest discrepancies were observed at the Z point on maxillary teeth (p < 0.05). Mandibular canine movements were more predictable than those of mandibular incisors (p < 0.05).
conclusionIn-house aligner planning and fabrication demonstrated effective and efficient outcomes for limited treatment cases. Tooth movement was generally more predictable in the maxilla than in the mandible, with canines showing greater predictability than incisors. Torque movements in the maxilla exhibited the lowest accuracy.
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.