ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Are arch width measurements from Invisalign arch width tables reliable?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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
introductionDespite being widely used for treatment planning, the accuracy of Invisalign arch width tables has not been independently assessed. The objective of this study was to assess whether the predicted and observed arch width changes calculated from Invisalign tables are consistent with measurements obtained from STL models.
methodsThirty-five adults treated with Invisalign aligners were retrospectively selected. Arch width at the maxillary and mandibular canines, premolars, and first molars was measured on digital models (pretreatment, prediction and first-refinement) using Geomagic Control X. Predicted and observed expansions (difference between predicted or post-treatment and pretreatment arch widths), and their discrepancy, were compared with the corresponding values calculated from the ClinCheck arch width tables. Three references were selected: (1) the projection of the long axis of the tooth on the occlusal surface, (2) the buccal/mesiobuccal cusps, and (3) the most lingual point of the gingival margin. Normality was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis with mixed-effects models to account for clustering of repeated measurements.
results840 arch widths were analyzed (35 patients, 4 tooth pairs, 2 jaws, and 3 time points). Non-normality of inter-method differences was observed in predicted expansion (gingival and occlusal references) and in discrepancy (cusp reference) (p < 0.05). Non-parametric Bland-Altman analysis showed high agreement between Geomagic and ClinCheck measurements for predicted expansion, observed expansion, and discrepancy, with bias values ranging from - 0.49 to 0.2 mm.
conclusionsClinCheck arch width tables showed strong agreement with independent metrological assessment, particularly with occlusal reference points [bias: 0.00 mm; limits of agreement: -0.80 to 1.01 mm]. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ClinCheck arch width tables have been validated with an independent metrological assessment (Geomagic Control X). Predicted expansion, observed expansion, and discrepancy derived from arch width tables agreed with independent measurements using virtual casts.
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.