The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta-analyses
Open accessAbstract
Summary: 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. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019131589).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · Cited by 10,578
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.
IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Rovers, M. M., & Goeman, J. J. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 · Cited by 2,264
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random‐effects meta‐analyses
Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., Viechtbauer, W., & Simmonds, M. (2019) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1316 · Cited by 1,074
Schünemann, H. J., Cuello, C., Akl, E. A., Mustafa, R. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Thayer, K., Morgan, R. L., Gartlehner, G., Kunz, R., Katikireddi, S. V., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012 · Cited by 911
Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00986.x · Cited by 696
Sideri, S., Papageorgiou, S. N., & Eliades, T. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.003 · Cited by 388
Self-citationLarge Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials: How Do Their Results Compare?
Cappelleri, J. C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160054033 · Cited by 336
Cited by
Papageorgiou, S. N., Antonoglou, G. N., Michelogiannakis, D., Kakali, L., Eliades, T., & Madianos, P. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/jcpe.13529 · Cited by 75
Self-citationOrthodontic treatment of patients with severe (stage IV) periodontitis
Papageorgiou, S. N., Antonoglou, G. N., Eliades, T., Martin, C., & Sanz, M. (2024) · Seminars in Orthodontics · doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2024.01.004 · Cited by 23
Self-citationHussain, U., Campobasso, A., Noman, M., Alam, S., Mujeeb, R., Shehzad, S., & Papageorgiou, S. N. (2024) · Progress in Orthodontics · doi:10.1186/s40510-024-00520-8 · Cited by 13
Self-citationClear Aligners: Where are we today? A narrative review
Shashidhar, K., Kanwal, B., Kuttappa, M., Krishna Nayak, U., Shetty, A., & Mathew, K. (2022) · Journal of International Oral Health · doi:10.4103/jioh.jioh_334_21 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Papageorgiou, S. N., Koletsi, D., Iliadi, A., Peltomaki, T., & Eliades, T.
- Venue
- European Journal of Orthodontics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-11-23
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 331-343
- ISSN
- 0141-5387 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2210
- OpenAlex
- W2991326102
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 6.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta-analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ejo/cjz094
- The paper
- Papageorgiou, S. N., Koletsi, D., Iliadi, A., Peltomaki, T., & Eliades, T. (2020). Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta-analyses. European Journal of Orthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz094
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
