Background: The use of orthodontic aligners to treat a variety of malocclusions has seen considerable increase in the last years, yet evidence about their efficacy and adverse effects relative to conventional fixed orthodontic appliances remains unclear.
Objective: This systematic review assesses the efficacy of aligners and fixed appliances for comprehensive orthodontic treatment.
Search methods: Eight databases were searched without limitations in April 2019.
Selection criteria: Randomized or matched non-randomized studies.
Data collection and analysis: Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment was done independently in triplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) or relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses, and the GRADE analysis of the evidence quality.Results: A total of 11 studies (4 randomized/7 non-randomized) were included comparing aligners with braces (887 patients; mean age 28.0 years; 33% male). Moderate quality evidence indicated that treatment with orthodontic aligners is associated with worse occlusal outcome with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (3 studies; MD = 9.9; 95% CI = 3.6-16.2) and more patients with unacceptable results (3 studies; RR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.2-2.0). No significant differences were seen for treatment duration. The main limitations of existing evidence pertained to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of included studies.
Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment with aligners is associated with worse treatment outcome compared to fixed appliances in adult patients. Current evidence does not support the clinical use of aligners as a treatment modality that is equally effective to the gold standard of braces.

https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/186070/1/nr17.pdf

Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the content, reliability, and quality of videos about orthodontic clear aligners on YouTube. MATERIALS AND METHODS Researchers used the Google Trends website to determine that the most frequently used search term for orthodontic clear aligners on the Internet was: "Invisalign." A search was then conducted on YouTube using the key word "Invisalign." From the first 140 results, 100 videos were selected for analysis. A 13-point content score was used to classify poor-content and rich-content videos, and the global quality scale (GQS) was used to examine quality of the videos. To evaluate reliability of the information, a five-question scale was used. The Mann-Whitney U-test, χ2 test, and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for statistical evaluations. RESULTS Of the YouTube videos, 33 were classified as rich content and 67 as poor content. Most videos (73%) were uploaded by laypeople, and most uploaders (71%) were women. The most commonly discussed content was instructions (65%), followed by procedure (57%) and pain (52%). Regarding the GQS, most of the videos were evaluated as moderate quality (51%). Compared with the poor-content video group, the rich-content video group had a significantly higher GQS score (P = .004). There was no significant difference between the poor-content and rich-content groups regarding information reliability (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS Video content on YouTube relating to aligner orthodontics was generally insufficient. The quality of videos was moderate, but the reliability of information was generally poor. Specialists should refer patients to reliable sources of information.

YouTube as a source of information about orthodontic clear aligners.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40510-019-0303-z.pdf

Pain level between clear aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review

Clinical effectiveness of clear aligner treatment compared to fixed appliance treatment: an overview of systematic reviews

Objectives To evaluate tooth movements during maxillary arch expansion with clear aligner treatment. Materials and methods The study group included 28 subjects (16 females, 12 males, mean age 31.9 ± 5.4 years) collected prospectively from January 2018 to May 2019. Inclusion criteria were European ancestry, posterior transverse discrepancy of 3-6 mm, permanent dentition stage, presence of second permanent molars, mild or moderate crowding, and good compliance with aligners. Treatment protocol included nonextraction strategies, application of Invisalign clear aligner system, and no auxiliaries other than Invisalign attachments. Linear and angular measurements were performed before treatment (T1), at the end of treatment (T2), and on final virtual models (T2 ClinCheck). A paired t-test was used to compare T2-T1 and T2-T2 ClinCheck changes. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results Statistically significant differences were found for all measurements, except for ones at the upper second molars. The greatest increase in maxillary width was detected at the upper first and second premolars: +3.5 mm for the first premolar and +3.8 mm for the second premolar at T2. Comparison of T2-T1 angular outcomes showed statistically significant changes in the inclinations of all teeth except for the second permanent molars. T2-T2 ClinCheck showed significant differences for both linear and angular measurements for maxillary canines, resulting in poor predictability. Conclusions Maxillary arch development revealed a progressive reduction of the expansion rate and buccal tipping in the anterior, lateral, and posterior regions, with the greatest net increase at the first and second premolars. Clinical attention should be paid to maxillary canine movements, and overcorrection should be planned for them during dentoalveolar expansion.

/pdf/maxillary-arch-development-with-invisalign-system-3d40gz5szf.pdf

Maxillary arch development with Invisalign system.

We are currently living in an era where the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing has allowed individualized orthodontic treatments, but has also incorporated enhanced digitalized technology that does not permit improvisation. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze publications that assessed the accuracy and efficiency of the Invisalign® system. A systematic review was performed using a search strategy to identify articles that referenced Invisalign®, which were published between August 2007 and August 2017, and listed in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and LILACS. Additionally, a manual search of clinical trials was performed in scientific journals and other databases. To rate the methodological quality of the articles, a grading system described by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care was used, in combination with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. We selected 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria and excluded 5 due to excess biases. The level of evidence was high. Although it is possible to treat malocclusions with plastic systems, the results are not as accurate as those achieved by treatment with fixed appliances.

/pdf/a-systematic-review-of-the-accuracy-and-efficiency-of-dental-30scxnf7wk.pdf

Lidia Galan-Lopez

Papers

A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with Invisalign