Clear aligner therapy in contemporary orthodontics: A scoping review of scholarly literature

Abstract

Objectives: Over the last two decades, clear aligners have become a mainstay in contemporary orthodontic practice primarily due to improvements in digital and 3D printing technologies, a growing interest in esthetic orthodontics, especially in the adult population, and aggressive manufacturer marketing internationally. Material and Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1998 to November 2021. The search terms used were “Invisalign” OR “clear aligner.” A total of 7000 records were searched, of which 369 potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full. 190 studies met the selection criteria following screening and were included in the scoping review. Results: This review scopes and analyses published orthodontic literature about CA according to a year-wise distribution into 3 groups, 2001–2010/2011–2020/2021. Most of the studies were published in the period between 2011 and 2020, with 138 studies accounting for 73%. The year 2021 followed, with 31 studies accounting for 16%, which was greater than the number of studies published in 10 years from 2001 to 2010. Studies were also classified based on the study designs with most of the published studies representing the lowest level of evidence including case reports, case series, narrative reviews, expert opinions, and editorials accounting for 137 studies, whereas case-control studies were the least reported studies with only 4 studies reported in the literature. In addition, they were categorized into seven main domains: (1) Biological considerations associated with clear aligner therapy (CAT), (2) Treatment outcomes considerations associated with CAT, (3) Geometrical considerations associated with CAT (clinical), (4) Biomechanical considerations associated with CAT (Laboratory/Finite element analysis), (5) Biomaterial considerations associated with CAT, (6) Patient education and experience and aesthetic and social perception of CAT, and (7) Miscellaneous. Treatment outcome considerations associated with CAT had the greatest percentage representing 36% of the total published domains, while the final place was occupied by the biomechanical considerations associated with CAT accounting for only 4% of the published domains about CAT. Conclusion: Treatment outcome was the domain most commonly reported by studies accounting for (36%). Most of the published studies are at the lowest level of evidence including case reports, case series, narrative reviews, and expert opinions. The vast majority of studies utilized only a single clear aligner brand. There is a greater need for research that studies CAT from a holistic perspective.