ArticleProgress in orthodontics2026
Three-dimensional crown-root movement in first premolar extraction cases treated with two clear aligner systems based on different materials: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo quantify and compare the three-dimensional (3D) deviations of crown and root movements produced by two clear aligner systems based on different materials-SmartTrack (ST) and MasterControl S (MCS)-in first premolar extraction cases using a 3D crown-root registration approach.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 29 patients (58 dental sides) treated with ST (n = 15) or MCS (n = 14). Pretreatment (T0) CBCT images were integrated with T0 and post-treatment (T1) intraoral scans and superimposed using palatal rugae as reference structures. Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were applied to estimate between-material differences while adjusting for age, sex, and standardized planned movement magnitude. Estimates are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThe two systems demonstrated no statistically significant difference in deviation in sagittal crown retraction of the maxillary central incisor (U1) (ST: 1.25 (1.30) mm; MCS: 2.13 (1.82) mm; LMM difference: - 0.81 mm; 95% CI - 1.89-0.28; P = 0.145). MCS demonstrated smaller deviation in sagittal root positioning for the second premolar (U5) (difference: 1.07 mm; 95% CI 0.21-1.93; P = 0.015) and first molar (U6) (difference: 1.04 mm; 95% CI 0.13-1.94; P = 0.025). ST showed improved control of U5 axial inclination (difference: 3.33°; 95% CI 0.27-6.39; P = 0.033) and torque (difference: 3.04°; 95% CI 0.08 to 6.00; P = 0.044). Both systems exhibited a consistent "roller-coaster effect", with no significant difference in unplanned U1 extrusion (difference: 0.14 mm; 95% CI - 0.73-1.02; P = 0.747).
conclusionsThe biomechanical performance of clear aligner systems appears to vary depending on tooth position and movement vector. SmartTrack demonstrated better control of premolar angulation and torque, whereas MasterControl S showed closer agreement with the planned sagittal root position.
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.