ArticleBMC oral health2025
Efficacy of posterior teeth mesialization with invisalign in moderate anchorage cases.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
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
backgroundClear aligner therapy has become increasingly common for extraction cases, yet achieving controlled bodily mesialization of posterior teeth remains challenging, particularly in moderate anchorage situations. Clinical experience suggests that aligners often cause molar tipping and loss of anchorage, but few studies have quantified this problem under realistic clinical conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the predictability of posterior tooth movement with Invisalign in moderate anchorage cases and to compare the performance of different attachment designs.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 32 patients (24 females, 8 males; mean age 23.9 ± 6.4 years) treated with bilateral first premolar extractions and Invisalign aligners. Digital dental models before and after treatment were superimposed using a surface-based registration protocol to assess tooth movement in three dimensions. The designed and achieved displacements, inclinations, rotations, and tipping angles of posterior teeth were compared using paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA.
resultsSignificant differences were observed between predicted and achieved values for mesial displacement and tipping in most posterior teeth. Maxillary first molars showed greater mesial movement and tipping than planned, while mandibular molars exhibited less movement but still notable tipping. Among attachment designs, the double attachment provided superior control of molar tipping compared to power arm and single attachment. Vertical skeletal pattern significantly influenced the expression of tipping and buccolingual inclination.
conclusionIn moderate anchorage extraction cases, posterior mesialization with clear aligners showed limited predictability, particularly due to molar mesial tipping. The use of double rectangular attachments appeared to provide better control of crown angulation than single attachment or power arm. These findings may help inform digital treatment planning and attachment selection for extraction cases requiring controlled posterior movement.
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.