ArticleBioinformation2025
Effect of clear aligners and fixed appliances among orthodontic patients: A comparative study.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. 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.
- Clear aligner therapy: a scoping review of treatment prediction, clinical effectiveness, and limitations.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Assessing root resorption incidence in clear aligner versus fixed orthodontic appliance using CBCT.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Clear aligner therapy among orthodontists in Turkey: practice patterns and comparison with previously reported Iranian findings.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Perception and satisfaction in patients using clear aligners versus fixed orthodontic appliances.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthodontic treatment can be delivered using clear aligners (CA) or fixed appliances (FA), yet direct comparisons of overall efficacy remain limited. This randomized controlled trial included 120 patients (60 CA, 60 FA) with mild-to-moderate malocclusions to evaluate treatment duration, occlusal outcomes (PAR index), pain, satisfaction and compliance. Treatment duration was longer with CA (18.2 ± 3.1 vs. 14.5 ± 2.8 months; p<0.001), while both groups achieved comparable PAR index reductions (p=0.082). Pain was lower and satisfaction higher in the CA group, with good compliance (21.8 ± 1.5 h/day). Both modalities effectively corrected malocclusions, with FA showing greater efficiency and CA providing superior comfort and patient experience.
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.