Space closure after premolar extraction using clear aligners: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe efficacy of clear aligner treatment (CAT) in space closure following premolar extraction (SCaPE) and its resistance to unwanted tooth movement remain uncertain. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy, predictability, and resistance to unwanted tooth movement by CAT for SCaPE.MethodsPre-post studies, randomized, and non-randomized clinical trials were included. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases up to November 12, 2024. Study quality was assessed using ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Three independent reviewers performed data extraction. A meta-analysis compared predicted versus achieved maxillary tooth movements in similar studies using the Invisalign® system. Standardized Paired Difference (SPD) with 95% Prediction Interval (95% PI) and Confidence Interval (95% CI) were used for effect size estimation. The GRADE tool evaluated the certainty of evidence.ResultsFourteen studies encompassing 510 participants were included. Four studies had a low risk of bias, while ten had a high risk of bias. The results from pre-post studies indicated that CAT was significantly less effective than predicted in achieving Anterior Teeth Retraction (SPD= -0.87; 95% CI = -1.15 to -0.60; 95% PI= -1.14 to -0.59; p < 0.001; number of studies = 4), resulting in more lingual tipping (SPD = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.73; 95% PI= -1.01 to 3.19; p = 0.001; number of studies = 3) and extrusion of anterior teeth (SPD = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.47 to 1.29; 95% PI= -0.16 to 1.92; p < 0.001; number of studies = 4) than predicted. The achieved distal tipping of canine (SPD = 1.42; 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.51; 95% PI= -2.5 to 5.40; p = 0.009; number of studies = 3) and mesial tipping of first molars (SPD = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.20; 95% PI = 0.34 to 3.01; p < 0.001; number of studies = 3;) were also greater than predicted. Clinical trials comparing CAT and fixed appliances provide limited evidence.ConclusionThe findings suggest that CAT may not be effective or predictable for SCaPE due to its limited capacity to promote the bodily movement of the teeth and control anchorage. Evidence indicates that fixed appliances might be superior to CAT. Limitations of the evidence include bias across studies, with the certainty of evidence ranging from low to very low. Future research should focus on improving prediction models and exploring the potential benefits of accessories to enhance CAT’s effectiveness.Registration: Not registered.