Table 2 Outcomes of the included studies
From: A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies
Reference | Outcomes | Treatment duration (month) | Conclusion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Measurements | Aligner | Brace | P value | Aligner | Brace | P value | |||
Djeu 2005 | OGS score immediately after appliance removal | 45.35± 15.56 | 32.21± 11.73 | 0.000 | 16.8 | 20.4 | 0.0138 | Invisalign® did not treat malocclusions as well as braces in occlusal contacts and correcting large anteroposterior discrepancies. Invisalign® was able to close space, correct anterior rotations and marginal ridge heights. | |
Number of cases receiving passing score (≤30 points lost on OGS) | 10 (20.8%) | 23 (47.9%) | 0.005 | ||||||
Kuncio 2007 | OGS score change between posttreatment and postretention | −0.73± 5.58 | 2.55 ± 7.30 | 0.1208 | 20.9 ± 10 | 28.1 ± 9.2 | 0.0941 | Patients treated with Invisalign® relapsed more than those treated with braces in alignment. | |
Pavoni 2011 | Maxillary intercanine width (cusp) change between pretreatment and posttreatment | 0.50 ± 1.10 mm | 3.15 ± 2.30 mm | 0.000 | 21.6 | 21.6 | >0.05 | Low friction self-ligating system produced significantly more transverse dento-alveolar width and perimeter of maxillary arch compared to Invisalign®. | |
Maxillary first interpremolar width (fossa) change | 0.05 ± 0.51 mm | 3.40 ± 1.96 mm | 0.000 | ||||||
Maxillary second interpremolar width (fossa) change | 0.45 ± 0.51 mm | 2.50 ± 2.16 mm | 0.000 | ||||||
Maxillary intemolar width (fossa) change | 0.50 ± 0.51 mm | 0.90 ± 2.45 mm | 0.479 | ||||||
Maxillary arch depth change | 0.00 ± 1.17 mm | 1.90 ± 11.40 mm | 0.463 | ||||||
Maxillary arch perimeter change | −0.05± 1.61 mm | 1.30 ± 2.23 mm | 0.034 | ||||||
Li 2015 | OGS score immediately after appliance removal | 24.49± 7.45 | 20.11 ± 6.24 | / | 31.5 | 22 | < 0.05 | Invisalign® scores were consistently lower than braces scores for buccolingual inclination and occlusal contacts. However, the similar overall improvement in OGS scores indicated that both Invisalign® and braces were successful in treating Class I adult extraction cases. | |
Number of cases receiving passing score (≤30 points lost on OGS) | 48 (66.67%) | 60 (75%) | 0.52 | ||||||
Grunheid 2016 | Buccolingual inclination of lower canines | Pretreatment | 6.6 ± 3.2° | 6.6 ± 3.4° | > 0.05 | 13.4± 6.8 | 20.2± 5.3 | < 0.05 | Orthodontic treatment with Invisalign® tended to increase the mandibular intercanine width with little change in inclination in contrast to treatment with braces, which left the intercanine width unchanged but leaded to more upright canines. |
Posttreatment | 7.3 ± 2.8° | 4.7 ± 4.8° | < 0.05 | ||||||
Mandibular intercanine width (cusp) | Pretreatment | 24.8 ± 1.9 mm | 25.3 ± 2.3 mm | > 0.05 | |||||
Posttreatment | 25.4 ± 1.3 mm | 25.2 ± 1.5 mm | > 0.05 | ||||||
Hennessy 2016 | Increase of mandibular incisor proclination during alignment | 3.4 ± 3.2° | 5.3 ± 4.3° | 0.14 | 10.2 | 11.3 | > 0.05 | Braces could produce more mandibular incisor proclination during alignment than Invisalign® did in mild crowding cases, but no statistically significant difference was found between two groups. | |
Gu 2017 | Weighted PAR score reduction | 16.73± 6.78 | 20.1 ± 8.06 | 0.457 | 13.35 ± 8.63 | 19.08 ± 5.92 | 0.004 | Both Invisalign® and braces were able to improve the malocclusion. However, Invisalign® may not be as effective as braces in achieving great improvement. | |
Number of cases receiving great improvement (a reduction of 22 PAR score) | 11 (22.9%) | 22 (45.8%) | 0.015 | ||||||
Lanteri 2018 | The percentage of improvement of the weighted PAR score | 80.9% | 91.0% | > 0.05 | 14 | 19 | < 0.05 | Invisalign® can achieve great outcomes with appropriate patients, especially in patients with anterior crowding. | |
Percentage of cases receiving great improvement | 42% | 46% | > 0.05 | ||||||