The effect of clear aligner treatment on masticatory muscles (masseter, temporalis) activity in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of clear aligners is becoming more common for aesthetic orthodontic treatment, but there are still concerns about how they affect mastication biomechanics in the short and long term. The clear aligners treatment (CAT) mechanism changes the position of the mandible and maxilla, especially impacting the masseter muscle. Surface electromyography (sEMG) proves to be a useful method to evaluate masticatory muscle activity (MMA). OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effect of clear aligners treatment on alterations in masticatory muscles (masseter, temporalis) using surface electromyography. SEARCH METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were searched up to March 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies in which MMA was evaluated after the installation of orthodontic clear aligners. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed by four investigators independently. The data, which evaluated temporalis and masseter muscle characteristics during CAT using surface electromyography, was extracted, and the quality of the studies was evaluated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Six studies (two prospective cohort studies, three observational longitudinal studies, and one observational longitudinal case-control study) with low and moderate risk of bias were included in the qualitative synthesis. Six of these were also included in the meta-analysis. Our study investigated the dynamics of masseter and temporalis muscle activity during CAT. The results show that during maximal voluntary clenching, the masseter muscle demonstrated a significant initial increase (P < .05) followed by a subsequent non-significant decrease. It also showed that submaximal voluntary clenching consistently exhibited a significant reduction in muscle activity throughout the study period (P < .01). Assessment of muscle activity at the mandibular resting position revealed a variety of responses, with some participants showing a significant increase while others exhibited non-significant changes (P < .05, P > .05, respectively). However, the meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in measuring masseter and temporalis muscles activity during CAT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that CAT affected MMA. During maximal voluntary clenching, masseter muscle activity initially increased but later decreased, while temporalis muscle activity showed mixed results. Submaximal voluntary clenching revealed a consistent decrease in muscle activity over time. Mandibular resting position assessments showed both increases and no significant changes in muscle activity. However, the existing literature is insufficient to draw concrete conclusions; therefore, well-conducted further research is needed to confirm this statement. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42024522231).
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".