ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2026
Environmental Impact of Orthodontics: A Literature Review of Traditional Multibracket Appliances and Clear Aligners.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Environmental impact of orthodontic treatment: a simplified fast-track comparative life-cycle impact assessment of self-ligating metal brackets and clear aligners.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Environmental Impact of Orthodontics: A Literature Review of Traditional Multibracket Appliances and Clear Aligners.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- Biodegradable Polymer Ligatures and Auxiliaries in Orthodontics: An Empty Systematic Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Climate change has led to a growing interest in environmental sustainability in the healthcare sector, including orthodontics. This review aims to analyze and compare the environmental footprint of traditional multibracket appliances (TMAs) and clear aligners (CAs), focusing on five aspects: manufacturing process, pollution from raw materials, clinical management, and recycling potential. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on different databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. In addition, a manual and gray literature search was performed. Included studies were reviews, systematic reviews, epidemiological studies, or life cycle assessment (LCA) addressing environmental aspects of orthodontic materials and treatments. The articles included in the review were then divided into the following categories: manufacturing processes, environmental impact of production, clinical management, and generation of waste with recycling potential. Results: A total of 34 studies published between 2003 and 2004, along with academic books and technical/informational sources, were analyzed. The production of TMA materials relies mainly on stainless steel (SS) and alumina, while CA uses thermoplastic polymers such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), glycol-modified PET (PET-G), and polyurethane (PU). Although SS production generates higher CO Conclusion: Both systems contribute to environmental pollution. TMA appears more sustainable due to its recyclability and reduced waste generation. Future research should focus on improving recyclable polymers, sustainable production methods, and optimized clinical workflows.
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.