ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2025
A Survey of Orthodontic Clear Aligner Practices among Orthodontists in Croatia.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to investigate clear aligner therapy (CAT) practices and protocols among orthodontic specialists in the Republic of Croatia. Materials and Methods: The modified version of a previously published questionnaire s was distributed online to 180 orthodontists. It included 46 open- and closed-ended questions across 11 sections, covering demographics, clinical use of CAT, aligner preferences, digital treatment planning (DTP), indications, protocols, interproximal reduction (IPR), refinements, retention, patient-reported issues, and overall perceptions. Respondents not using CAT were directed to a separate section on non-use. Results: The majority of respondents (88%) reported using CAT in clinical practice, although only 10% of their annual cases involved CAT. Adults were more common patient group (57.9%), and the main indication was mild to moderate crowding. Invisalign was the most frequently used aligner system (58.7%), primarily chosen for the quality of digital treatment planning (DTP) and sophistication of product features. Two-thirds of the respondents reported modifying the digital treatment plan, particularly by adjusting the final tooth position. Refinement was performed in 50% of the cases. IPR was included in 80% of the initial treatment plans and only 20% of the refinement phases. Finally, 52.6% of orthodontists considered CAT to be superior to conventional fixed appliance therapy. Conclusions: CAT is widely used by orthodontists in Croatia, primarily for mild cases. Nevertheless, aligners are still not perceived as producing superior outcomes compared with fixed appliances.
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.