ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Predictability of In-Office Clear Aligner at Final Canine Retraction: A Comparison of Interproximal Contact Tightness and Canine Distalization Between Virtual and Actual Outcomes in Premolar Extraction Cases.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective study aimed to evaluate interproximal contact tightness (ICT) at completion of maxillary canine retraction in first premolar extraction cases treated with In-office Clear Aligner (IOCA). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study sample comprised 18 subjects who underwent maxillary first premolar extractions. All cases were treated using a multi-stage intraoral scanning protocol, followed by digital laboratory set-up for the fabrication of IOCA. Recorded data of both virtual and actual stereolithography models at completion of canine retraction were collected. The ICT between the maxillary canine and second premolar was evaluated using (1) virtual residual extraction space (VRS) and (2) actual residual extraction space (ARS). Using superimposed models, canine distalization was assessed through (1) virtual canine distalization (VCD) and (2) actual canine distalization (ACD). All measurements were performed using GOM Inspect Suite. Statistical analysis involved the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and paired t-test.
resultsInterproximal contact tightness of the actual group (median 0.46 mm; 95% CI: 0.41-0.58 mm) demonstrated statistically significant larger residual space than the virtual group (median 0.11 mm; 95% CI: 0.10-0.21 mm). The median difference between ARS and VRS was 0.28 mm (95% CI: 0.26-0.42 mm). The mean VCD was significantly greater (7.41 ± 0.89 mm) than the ACD (7.18 ± 0.97 mm).
conclusionThe actual interproximal contacts were not completely closed, in contrast to the complete contact predicted by the 3D virtual setup. To prevent this remaining gap, it is recommended to perform fake interproximal stripping or tooth collision during the virtual planning stage.
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.