Clear aligner's adverse effects: A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing popularity of clear aligners, more patients have chosen to use them instead of traditional orthodontic braces to correct their malocclusions. Clear aligners offer distinct advantages over conventional fixed braces, such as limited aesthetic impact, the convenience of easily removing them for meals, improved accessibility for brushing and flossing, and a treatment approach that avoids the use of metal, minimizing potential irritation to the cheeks and gums. Manufacturers point out a disadvantage that can be administered in this type of treatment. Still, to our knowledge, a comprehensive review of the published literature assessing the adverse/negative effects of clear aligners has not yet been conducted. A systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, will be performed. The inclusion criteria will be studies involving individuals using clear aligners and reporting potential adverse/negative effects during or after treatment. No restrictions about time or language will be applied. The studies screening will be conducted in two stages. Two independent reviewers will initially evaluate the title and abstract under the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, the same two reviewers will examine the articles' full text in-depth. The results will be synthesized in the form of a narrative description and incorporate a meta-analysis if justified. Furthermore, we will present details regarding the sample characteristics, intervention, study objectives, methodologies employed, and primary findings. This study aims to investigate the potential adverse effects and their frequency among orthodontic patients wearing clear aligners. Moreover, the outcomes of this review have the potential to illuminate specific inherent limitations of aligner therapy as a comprehensive orthodontic approach.
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 | 0.086 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.011 |
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".