Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Oct 20;30(3):e2524243.
doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.30.3.e2524243.oar. eCollection 2025.

A pilot study comparing virtual treatment setups among clear aligner companies

Vicente Telles  1 , Claudia Trindade Mattos  2 , Flavio Copello  3 , Maria B Doughan  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A pilot study comparing virtual treatment setups among clear aligner companies

Vicente Telles et al. Dental Press J Orthod. .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Objective: This pilot study aims to compare virtual treatment setups provided by four different clear aligner companies, to assess how variations in features might impact treatment planning.

Methods: Initial records of 10 patients were submitted to Invisalign®, ClearCorrect®, 3M™ Clarity™, and Spark™. Standardized case prescriptions ensured comparable treatment plans across companies. Comparisons focused on the number of aligners, number of attachments, interproximal reduction per arch, vertical movement of maxillary central incisors, final canine and molar relationships, intercanine and intermolar widths, and expansion or constriction of these widths.

Results: Among the companies, significant differences were found in the number of aligners (p = 0.003), number of attachments (p< 0.001), and final canine relationship (p = 0.013). No statistical differences were observed for the other variables. ClearCorrect® prescribed the fewest number of aligners and attachments, while 3M™ Clarity™ prescribed the most. ClearCorrect® and Spark™ showed deficiencies in planning for bilateral canine Class I relationship.

Conclusions: The unique characteristics of each aligner company result in distinct approaches to treating the same patient, highlighting both areas of discrepancy and consistency in virtual treatment setups.

Objetivo:: Este estudo piloto tem como objetivo comparar o setup virtual entre quatro empresas de alinhadores para avaliar como as características de cada uma podem impactar no plano de tratamento.

Métodos:: A documentação inicial de 10 pacientes foi enviada para Invisalign®, ClearCorrect®, 3M™ Clarity™, e Spark™. A prescrição de tratamento para cada caso foi padronizada para garantir planos de tratamento equiparáveis entre as empresas. As comparações focaram no número de alinhadores, número de attachments, redução interproximal por arco, movimento vertical dos incisivos centrais superiores, relações oclusais finais de caninos e molares, distâncias intercaninos e intermolar, e expansão ou constrição dessas distâncias.

Resultados:: Entre as empresas, diferenças significativas foram encontradas no número de alinhadores (p-valor = 0,003), número de attachments (p-valor < 0,001) e relação oclusal final dos caninos (p-valor = 0,013). Não foram observadas diferenças estatísticas para as outras variáveis. A ClearCorrect® prescreveu o menor número de alinhadores e attachments, enquanto a 3M™ Clarity™ prescreveu o maior. A ClearCorrect® e a Spark™ apresentaram deficiências no planejamento para obtenção de relação bilateral de Classe I dos caninos.

Conclusões:: As características individuais de cada empresa de alinhadores resultam em abordagens distintas para o tratamento de um mesmo paciente, destacando-se tanto áreas de discrepância quanto de consistência nas configurações do setup virtual.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

References

    1. Hussain SR, Jiang SS, Bosio JA. Generational perspectives of orthodontists in the U S. and Canada: a survey study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022;162(6):824–838. - PubMed
    1. Tamer I, Öztas E, Marsan G. Orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and the scientific reality behind their marketing a literature review. Turk J Orthod. 2019;32(4):241–246. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017;62(1):58–62. - PubMed
    1. Bichu YM, Alwafi A, Liu X, Andrews J, Ludwig B, Bichu AY, Zou B. Advances in orthodontic clear aligner materials. Bioact Mater. 2022;22:384–403. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wolf J. Orthodontists aren't smiling about teeth-straightening start-ups. Los Angeles Times; 2018. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-straighten-teeth-20180921-story.html

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources