Clear aligner therapy versus conventional brackets: Oral impacts over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective is to compare the impact of clear aligner treatment (CAT) versus conventional fixed appliance treatment (FAT) on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among adults at five-time points: pretreatment (T0), 1 week (T1), 1 month after (T2), and 6 months after (T3) treatment initiation, and in the long-term follow-up (T4). Materials and Methods: Search terms were based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH. Potentially eligible studies compared OHRQoL in clear aligner (CA) and fixed appliance (FA) patients. In February 2023, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and PubMed were searched for published studies. Nine out of 94 shortlisted papers were eligible for a systematic review. Of these nine papers, five studies were considered for a meta-analysis. Results: At T0, CA and FA patients had similar oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 questionnaire scores with a standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.105 (confidence interval [CI]: -1.029-1.48). The SMD of the OHRQoL related to T1, T2, and T3 was -3.119 (CI: -0.145, 0.355), -1.527 (CI: -5.597, -0.64), and - 2.331 (CI: -1.906, -1.148). T4 showed no difference between groups (SMD = 0.007, CI: CI: -4.286, -0.376). Regarding the OHIP-14 domains, functional limitations remained consistent in both groups across all time intervals. Psychological discomfort exhibited a notable difference only at T2. Throughout the treatment, CAT showed significantly lower levels of physical, psychological, and social disability, as well as handicap, though these differences did not persist beyond T4. Notably, physical pain was the sole domain that remained elevated in the FAT group up to T4. Conclusion: day of the orthodontic treatment, both the CA and FA groups had comparable OHRQoL statuses. However, as time passed, the CA group notably improved their OHRQoL compared to the FA group. Interestingly, after a year or the completion of treatment, both groups eventually reached similar OHRQoL levels. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that FA patients continued to experience more physical pain even a year later.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".