Effect of clear aligners on oral health‐related quality of life: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clear aligners have been frequently applied in orthodontic clinic practice. However, its effect on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) compared with fixed appliance treatment (FAT) remains inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to compare the impacts of clear aligner treatment (CAT) with FAT on patients' OHRQoL. Electronic searches of databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, two Chinese databases and six grey literature databases) were conducted up to July 2019. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies comparing the impact of CAT and FAT on OHRQoL with validated instruments were included. Extraction of data and assessment of the risk of bias were conducted using ROBINS-I-tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROB 2.0 based on study design. Of the 1112 records initially identified, 2 studies were included in this review. One study evaluated OHRQoL at the last debonding appointment, while the other made evaluation at the early stage of treatment. In the aspect of functional dimensions, both studies reported less eating disturbance in CAT patients than FAT ones. Based on currently limited information, the effect of CAT on the overall OHRQoL compared to FTA was still inconclusive. In individual dimensions, however, weak evidence supported that CAT might cause less eating disturbance than FAT. More high-quality clinical trials using validated OHRQoL instruments are needed to draw more reliable conclusions in the effect of CAT and FAT on OHRQoL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".