Dataset Information

Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Aim was to systematically search the literature and assess the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of the Invisalign® system.

Methods

Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of all eligible articles were examined for additional studies. Reporting of this review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Three RCTs, 8 prospective, and 11 retrospective studies were included. In general, the level of evidence was moderate and the risk of bias ranged from low to high, given the low risk of bias in included RCTs and the moderate (n?=?13) or high (n?=?6) risk of the other studies. The lack of standardized protocols and the high amount of clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the studies precluded a valid interpretation of the actual results through pooled estimates. However, there was substantial consistency among studies that the Invisalign® system is a viable alternative to conventional orthodontic therapy in the correction of mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients that do not require extraction. Moreover, Invisalign® aligners can predictably level, tip, and derotate teeth (except for cuspids and premolars). On the other hand, limited efficacy was identified in arch expansion through bodily tooth movement, extraction space closure, corrections of occlusal contacts, and larger antero-posterior and vertical discrepancies.

Conclusions

Although this review included a considerable number of studies, no clear clinical recommendations can be made, based on solid scientific evidence, apart from non-extraction treatment of mild to moderate malocclusions in non-growing patients. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity.

SUBMITTER: Papadimitriou A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6160377 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

Papadimitriou Aikaterini A Mousoulea Sophia S Gkantidis Nikolaos N Kloukos Dimitrios D

Progress in orthodontics 20180928 1

<h4>Background</h4>Aim was to systematically search the literature and assess the available evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of the Invisalign® system.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of all eligible articles were examined for additional studies. Reporting of this review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.<h4>Results</h4>Three R ...[more]

PMID: 30264270

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical (OOS) treatment in borderline class III malocclusion patients.MethodsEligibility criteria. The included studies were clinical trials and/or follow-up observational studies (retrospective and prospective). Information sources. PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and LILACS were searched up to October 2021. Risk of bias. Downs and Black quality assessment checklist was used. Synthesis of results. The outcomes were the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes obtained from pre- and post-cephalometric measurements.ResultsIncluded studies. Out of 2089 retrieved articles, 6 were eligible and thus included in the subsequent analyses. Their overall risk of bias was moderate. Outcome results. The results are presented as pre- and post-treatment values or mean changes in both groups. Two studies reported significant retrusion of the maxillary and mandibular bases in OC, in contrast to significant maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion with increased ANB angle in OOS. Regarding the vertical jaw relation, one study reported a significant decrease in mandibular plane inclination in OC and a significant increase in OOS. Most of the included studies reported a significant proclination in the maxillary incisors in both groups. Three studies reported a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in OOS, while four studies reported retroclination in OC.ConclusionInterpretation. The OSS has a protrusive effect on the maxillary base, retrusive effect on the mandibular base, and thus improvement in the sagittal relationship accompanied with a clockwise rotational effect on the mandibular plane. The OC has more proclination effect on the maxillary incisors and retroclination effect on the mandibular incisors compared to OOS. Limitation. Meta-analysis was not possible due to considerable variations among the included studies. Owing to the fact that some important data in the included studies were missing, conducting further studies with more standardized methodologies is highly urgent. Registration. The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199591).Clinical relevanceThe common features including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue characteristics of borderline class III malocclusion cases make it more difficult to select the most appropriate treatment modality that can be either OC or OOS. The availability of high-level evidence-systematic reviews-makes the clinical decision much more clear and based on scientific basis rather than personal preference.

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, dental models, facial and intra-oral photographs and a set of two-dimensional radiographs are used for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. As evidence is lacking, the discussion is ongoing which specific records are needed for the process of making an orthodontic treatment plan.ObjectiveTo estimate the contribution and importance of different diagnostic records for making an orthodontic diagnosis and treatment plan.Data sourcesAn electronic search in PubMed (1948-July 2012), EMBASE Excerpta Medica (1980-July 2012), CINAHL (1982-July 2012), Web of Science (1945-July 2012), Scopus (1996-July 2012), and Cochrane Library (1993-July 2012) was performed. Additionally, a hand search of the reference lists of included studies was performed to identify potentially eligible studies. There was no language restriction.Study selectionThe patient, intervention, comparator, outcome (pico) question formulated for this study was as follows: for patients who need orthodontic treatment (P), will the use of record set X (I) compared with record set Y (C) change the treatment plan (O)? Only primary publications were included.Data extractionIndependent extraction of data and quality assessment was performed by two observers.ResultsOf the 1041 publications retrieved, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies were of high quality. Because of the limited number of high quality studies and the differences in study designs, patient characteristics, and reference standard or index test, a meta-analysis was not possible.ConclusionCephalograms are not routinely needed for orthodontic treatment planning in Class II malocclusions, digital models can be used to replace plaster casts, and cone-beam computed tomography radiographs can be indicated for impacted canines. Based on the findings of this review, the minimum record set required for orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning could not be defined.Systematic review registration numberCRD42012002365.

Dataset Information

Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets