Trial reportOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Quantifying Root Resorption on the Incisors After Clear Aligner and Fixed Appliance Therapy Using Artificial Intelligence Tool Based CBCT Surface Models: Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2026. 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.
- Assessing root resorption incidence in clear aligner versus fixed orthodontic appliance using CBCT.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify external apical root resorption (EARR) on the incisors following non-extraction treatment of Class I malocclusion patients with moderate crowding, comparing clear aligners and fixed appliances using a novel 3D analysis of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) derived surface models.
methodsIn this randomized clinical trial, 32 adult patients, mean age 22.3 years, mean treatment duration 24.2 months, with Class I malocclusion and moderate crowding (mean Little's Index 4.76 mm) were allocated to either clear aligner (n = 15) or fixed appliance (n = 17) treatment. CBCT scans were obtained before and after treatment. EARR was measured using surface-based analysis of 3D models, and associations with patient and treatment-related factors were tested.
resultsThe overall median EARR was -0.72 mm, with no significant difference between clear aligners (-0.71 mm) and fixed appliances (-0.72 mm). Upper lateral incisors exhibited significantly greater EARR than lower incisors (p = 0.002) and upper central incisors (p < 0.001). No significant predictor for EARR was found considering age, sex, crowding severity or treatment duration.
conclusionsEARR occurred following non-extraction treatment of Class I malocclusion with both clear aligners and fixed appliances, with no significant difference between appliance types. Upper lateral incisors were most susceptible to EARR. The novel 3D analysis enabled comprehensive quantification of total EARR, setting a new methodological standard. Monitoring root health during treatment is important, particularly for upper lateral incisors.
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.