ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Efficacy of planned overjet, overbite, arch depth and incisor labiolingual changes with the Invisalign Lite appliance: a retrospective analysis.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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.
- Clear aligner therapy: a scoping review of treatment prediction, clinical effectiveness, and limitations.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
Objectives: To compare planned and achieved outcomes for an initial series of Invisalign Lite (Align Technology, Santa Clara, Calif) aligners regarding overjet, overbite, arch depth, and incisor labiolingual inclination. Materials and Methods: Relevant data from adult patients satisfying inclusion criteria regarding overjet and overbite were obtained from the Align Technology treatment planning application. Metrology software was employed to calculate pretreatment, planned, and achieved arch depth and labiolingual measurements of maxillary and mandibular central incisors. Bland-Altman plots were used to demonstrate findings. Results: Most (n = 95; 79.5%) of 122 patients satisfying selection criteria were female. For overjet, mean differences were + 0.183 mm (SD: 0.557). P values (both = 1.000) indicated that differences did not lie outside the clinically acceptable interval ± 0.5 mm. For overbite, with a mean difference of + 0.746 mm (SD: 0.857), Bland-Altman plot showed a potential proportional bias, with discrepancies increasing as initial overbite increased. Across all arch depth subgroups, differences remained within an acceptable range, and no differences (P > .05) were detected between planned and achieved outcomes. Achieved mandibular incisor labiolingual inclination outcomes closely matched those planned with a mean difference of -1.088° (SD = 2.78°), whereas corresponding outcomes in the maxilla (-2.905° [SD = 2.671°]) indicated a consistent tendency for achieved to be lower than planned. Conclusions: Although achieved overjet, arch depth and mandibular incisor labiolingual inclination measurements closely matched those planned, there were significant statistical and clinical differences between planned and achieved overbite and maxillary incisor labiolingual inclination measurements.
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.