The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Align technology has developed greatly over past few years. Patients tended to prefer clear aligners over conventional brackets because of the superior comfort and esthetics, while the effectiveness of clear aligners was still controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether the treatment effectiveness of clear aligners was similar to the conventional fixed appliances. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases for studies published through to August 20, 2018 was conducted. Comparative clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of clear aligners compared with braces were included. RESULTS: Eight papers were included in this study. Two of the included papers were randomized controlled trials and six were cohort studies. Clear aligners might not be as effective as braces in producing adequate occlusal contacts, controlling teeth torque, increasing transverse width and retention. While no statistically significant difference was found between two groups in Objective Grading System score (WMD = 8.38, 95% CI [- 0.17, 16.93]; P = 0.05). On the other hand, patients treated with clear aligners had a statistically significant shorter treatment duration than with braces (WMD = - 6.31, 95% CI [- 8.37, - 4.24]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both clear aligners and braces were effective in treating malocclusion. Clear aligners had advantage in segmented movement of teeth and shortened treatment duration, but were not as effective as braces in producing adequate occlusal contacts, controlling teeth torque, and retention.
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
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 · Cited by 1,766
Cited by
Clear 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
- Ke, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhu, M.
- Venue
- BMC Oral Health
- Published
- 2019-01-23
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-24
- ISSN
- 1472-6831 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2923285598
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z
- The paper
- Ke, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhu, M. (2019). A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. BMC Oral Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z
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.