ArticleBMC oral health2026
Temporomandibular joint changes after orthodontic treatment with clear aligners: A scoping review.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
objectiveTo review the available evidence on temporomandibular joint morphological changes after orthodontic treatment with clear aligners, as assessed using CBCT scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis review sought randomized clinical trials, controlled or comparative clinical trials, and retrospective cohort studies. The primary outcomes were condylar position and joint spaces, and the secondary outcomes were condylar dimensions and inclination, and mandibular fossa dimensions. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the Clinical Trials Registration and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platforms were searched. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
resultsThe review included four retrospective studies with high heterogeneity and risk of bias. Each study addressed a different type of malocclusions; Class I, Class II (unspecified division), Class II division 1, and Class II division 2. After clear aligner treatment in adults, no significant changes were observed in condylar position or joint spaces in Class I non-extraction and extraction cases, as well as in Class II non-extraction cases while, Class II division 2 non-extraction cases demonstrated improvement in initially posteriorly positioned condyles. A similar change was reported in skeletal Class II division 1 adolescents treated with functional clear aligners. Results suggest that growth plays a significant role in influencing condylar position and mandibular fossa dimensions.
conclusionsThe evidence is derived from four studies with a serious risk of bias, therefore should be interpreted as exploratory rather than confirmatory. This review highlights a research gap that warrants further investigation through high-quality studies followed by systematic reviews.
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.