Introduction Orthodontic improvements, mainly through the previous decade, have led to a substantial rise in patients’ esthetic needs. Traditional orthodontic procedures have been linked with a compromise in facial appearance, which increases concern among patients pursuing orthodontic treatment. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews databases were searched using appropriate entry terms and Boolean operators. Search strategy was conducted till June 2022 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Publications were systematically assessed for eligibility, and two observers independently graded the methodologic quality using AMSTAR-2 tool. For each meta-analysis, we estimated the summary effect size by the use of random-effects and fixed-effects models and the 95% confidence interval. We estimated the between-study heterogeneity expressed by I 2 (defined as large for I 2 ≥50%), evidence of small-study effects (i.e., large studies had significantly more conservative results than smaller studies), and evidence of excess significance bias (i.e., more studies than expected with significant results). Results Overall, 16 unique systematic reviews and meta-analyses following the eligibility criteria were selected for umbrella review. The results of qualitative analysis of studies revealed that 4 studies had a critically low risk of bias, 11 showed low risk, and 1 study had moderate risk. The results of the meta-analysis favored clear aligners with respect to oral hygiene and root resorption parameters. When tooth movements were considered, the results favored conventional orthodontic treatment. Conclusion Clear aligner therapy (CAT) has significant advantages with regard to efficiency (treatment time, chair time) in mild-moderate malocclusion cases. The overall accuracy of CAT when compared to fixed orthodontic treatment was found to be 55-82%.
Read full abstract