ReviewDental research journal2025
Pain perception and sEMG of masticatory muscle in clear aligners vs. conventional orthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Dental research journal, 2025. 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
Background: Clear aligner therapy (CAT) has gained popularity as an alternative to Conventional Orthodontic Treatments (COT) for its potential to reduce pain and discomfort. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare pain perception and surface electromyography (sEMG) in masticatory muscles between CAT and COT groups. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies. The PRISMA guidelines were employed to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024556800). Results: Nine studies were considered for inclusion. The meta-analysis revealed a nonsignificant difference in Visual Analog Scale scores between CAT and COT groups, with a mean difference (MD) of -2.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.25, 1.71), Conclusion: The results suggest that CAT may be associated with improved patient outcomes, including reduced pain and discomfort, as well as lower analgesic consumption. However, the evidence is not conclusive, and further research is needed to fully understand the differences between CAT and COT.
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.