ReviewJournal of orthodontic science2026
Do treatment outcomes of clear aligners remain stable over time? A systematic review.
Review in Journal of orthodontic science, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review systematically evaluated the evidence on clear aligner therapy, focusing on its dentoskeletal, periodontal, and patient-related advantages over traditional appliances. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant studies published between January 2015 and March 2025. The two authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of conceivably eligible papers. Disputes between the two examiners were settled by discussion, and a third party was consulted for a conclusive decision. The review question was formulated using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. The risk of bias instrument RoB-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) method was used in assessing non-randomized studies.
resultsThe search identified 196 studies, of which 55 underwent full-text review, and 15 met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen were non-randomized studies and two randomized. Six examined long-term aligner outcomes without comparison, three compared aligners with twin block appliances, one with an untreated group, and six with fixed appliances. According to the ROBINS-I tool, three studies showed low, three moderate, and seven high risk of bias (RoB), while both RCTs had low risk according to RoB-2.
conclusionClear aligners enhance dental aesthetics and periodontal health relative to conventional fixed appliances, offering potential benefits in treatment length and patient comfort.
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.