ArticleCureus2024
Predictability of Orthodontic Space Closure Using Invisalign Clear Aligners: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictability of In-Office Clear Aligner at Final Canine Retraction: A Comparison of Interproximal Contact Tightness and Canine Distalization Between Virtual and Actual Outcomes in Premolar Extraction Cases.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing the Predictability and Success of Invisalign Aligners: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Impact of Molar Teeth Distalization by Clear Aligners on the Temporomandibular Joint: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Three-dimensional quantitative temporomandibular joint changes in skeletal class I malocclusion treated with extraction and non-extraction protocols: a comparative study of fixed orthodontic appliances and clear aligners.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Clear aligners have demonstrated success in achieving complex tooth movements. However, orthodontists have faced challenges related to the predictability of clear aligners. This retrospective study aimed to assess the predictability of ClinCheck® accuracy in space closure before and after Invisalign® treatment and to identify factors associated with the need for refinement. Methods Patient records from one private clinic in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, were analyzed, and a sample of 55 adult patients who had spacing and underwent Invisalign treatment were included. Data on demographic and orthodontic variables were collected, and a chi-square test was conducted to examine the association between the requirement for refinement and demographic as well as clinical/orthodontic factors. Furthermore, the initial and final space measurements were compared using paired t-tests across various demographic and clinical/orthodontic variables. Results After completing the treatment, 70.9% (N=39) of the cases did not require any orthodontic refinement. The mean final space measurement was higher for males compared to females (0.7 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively), individuals who received treatment in the upper compared to lower arch (0.5 and 0.4 mm, respectively), those with moderate compared to mild spacing (0.5 and 0.1 mm, respectively), and those with class III compared to class I Angle classification (0.9 and 0.3 mm, respectively). Additionally, patients with severe spacing had a significantly higher probability of requiring refinement compared to patients with mild spacing (adjusted odds ratio = 20.9; p < 0.05). Conclusion The study emphasizes the significance of careful patient selection and treatment planning, suggesting that orthodontists should consider overcorrecting in space closure when using clear aligners, especially in cases with more significant spacing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.