ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Comparative Evaluation of Modified Vacuum-Formed Aligners Versus Conventional Micro-Implant Anchorage in Molar Intrusion for Pre-Restorative Orthodontics.
Article 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.
- Comparative Evaluation of Modified Vacuum-Formed Aligners Versus Conventional Micro-Implant Anchorage in Molar Intrusion for Pre-Restorative Orthodontics.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of modified vacuum-formed aligners (clear aligners with three-dimensional digital design) versus conventional micro-implant anchorage in molar intrusion for pre-restorative orthodontic treatment.
methodsA total of 91 patients requiring pre-restorative orthodontic treatment were enrolled from Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Institute of Stomatology, Nanjing University between January 2022 and December 2025. All participants exhibited overeruption of antagonist molars due to long-term absence of mandibular first or second molars, resulting in insufficient space for implant restoration and occlusal plane disturbance, thus requiring molar intrusion prior to prosthetic rehabilitation. Patients were divided into two groups: the aligner group (n = 44, treated with digitally designed clear aligners) and the anchorage group (n = 47, treated with traditional micro-implant anchorage).
resultsThe anchorage group achieved significantly greater buccal and palatal intrusion than the aligner group (p < 0.05). Postoperative VAS scores at 24 h and 3 days in the aligner group were lower than those in the anchorage group (p < 0.05). Both groups showed comparable intrusion of buccal, palatal, mesial, and distal cusps (p > 0.05). The aligner group had a shorter treatment duration (p < 0.05). The complication rate in the aligner group was significantly lower than that in the anchorage group (p < 0.05).
conclusionModified vacuum-formed aligners provided better patient comfort, shorter treatment duration, and fewer complications, whereas micro-implant anchorage demonstrated superior efficiency in molar intrusion. Both techniques achieved satisfactory three-dimensional control, and clinical selection should be based on individual patient needs.
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.