ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
A Comparison of Clear Aligners and Fixed Appliances in Orthodontic-Surgical Treatment of Non-Extraction Skeletal Class III Malocclusion.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis retrospective study assessed the outcomes of combined orthodontic-surgical treatment in skeletal Class III patients by comparing results achieved with clear aligners to those achieved with conventional fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study involved 24 skeletal Class III malocclusion patients who were treated with non-extraction orthodontic using either fixed appliances or clear aligners (Invisalign), in conjunction with orthognathic surgery. All patients underwent mandibular surgery only. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained and analysed for both groups at three stages: before orthodontic treatment (T0), one week before surgery (T1), and at least eight months after surgery (T2). All the statistical tests were performed in SPSS 30 and power calculations were done in G*Power.
resultsIn this pilot study, significant skeletal and dentoalveolar changes occurred in both groups (p < 0.001). Between-group comparisons showed that during presurgical decompensation (T1-T0), fixed appliances produced greater lower incisor proclination (IMPA) (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = -1.13 - 1.27). During postsurgical orthodontics (T2-T1), clear aligners resulted in less lower incisor labial tipping (L1-FH), less upper incisor intrusion (U1-PP), and less lower first molar intrusion (L6-MP) (p < 0.05, d = -1.03 - 1.1). At final follow-up (T2-T0), the clear aligner group continued to show less vertical intrusion of the lower incisor and first molar (L1-MP, L6-MP; p < 0.05, d = 1.11-1.17). After adjusting for genioplasty, clear aligners were associated with superior postsurgical vertical skeletal control, upper lip retraction, and facial convexity (p < 0.05).
conclusionWithin this pilot study, clear aligners showed signals of greater treatment efficiency, less unwanted labial tipping, and reduced vertical intrusion, whereas fixed appliances showed greater incisor and molar decompensation. These hypothesis-generating findings indicate that treatment individualization by biomechanical needs and patient preferences should be tested in future powered trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42627492What 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.