Skip to main content

Advertisement

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
  1. OGS Objective Grading System; PAR Peer Assessment Rating