The Outcomes, Challenges, And Effectiveness Of Conventional Braces Vs Clear Aligners

Authors

  • khalil Ahmed
  • Obaidullah Khan
  • Faryal Ali Syed
  • Samra Bokhari
  • Abid Hussain Kanju
  • Tahmeena Kausar
  • Nabeel Khan

Keywords:

Aesthetic, Patients, Aligners, Satisfactory, Methods

Abstract

Introduction: Orthodontic treatment has evolved significantly over the years, with traditional metal braces and clear aligners emerging as the two primary options for correcting dental misalignments. Both methods aim to enhance oral health, improve aesthetics, and boost patients' confidence.

Objective: The main objective of this study is to find the outcomes, challenges, and effectiveness of conventional braces vs clear aligners.

Methodology: This prospective observational study was conducted at Bahria Town International Hospital  Karachi, B.M.C.H Quetta, from June 2022 to June 2024. A total of 160 participants were recruited for the study. Baseline data were collected on the participants' dental conditions, including the type and severity of malocclusion. for all analyses.

Results: The study included 160 participants, equally divided between the conventional braces group (Group A, n = 80) and the clear aligners group (Group B, n = 80). The mean age of participants was similar between the groups, with 28.5 years in the conventional braces group and 29.1 years in the clear aligners group. Gender distribution was almost equal, with slightly more females in both groups. The mean malocclusion severity scores were comparable, 7.8 ± 1.4 for braces and 7.5 ± 1.3 for aligners. 92% of participants in the conventional braces group achieved satisfactory alignment, compared to 84% in the clear aligners group, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). The average treatment duration was significantly longer for the braces group (18.4 ± 2.3 months) compared to the clear aligners group (14.2 ± 1.9 months) (p = 0.01).

Conclusion: This study concludes that both conventional braces and clear aligners are effective for orthodontic treatment, but they cater to different patient needs. Conventional braces are more suited for complex cases requiring precise tooth movement, while clear aligners offer greater comfort, aesthetic appeal, and convenience for mild to moderate cases.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Ke, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhu, M. (2019). A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. BMC Oral Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z

Kesling, H.D., 1946. Coordinating the predetermined pattern and tooth positioner with conventional treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, 32, pp.285–293. doi: 10.1016/0096-6347(46)90053-1.

Khosravi, R., Cohanim, B., Hujoel, P., Daher, S., Neal, M., Liu, W. and others, 2017. Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 151, pp.691–699. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.022.

Frongia, G. and Castroflorio, T., 2012. Correction of severe tooth rotations using clear aligners: a case report. Australian Orthodontic Journal, 28, pp.245–249.

Zheng, M., Liu, R., Ni, Z. and Yu, Z., 2017. Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, 20, pp.127–133. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12177.

Wells, G.A., Shea, B., O’Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M. and others. 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. [online] Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Accessed 8 Oct. 2018].

Higgins, J.P., Thompson, S.G. and Spiegelhalter, D.J., 2009. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 172, pp.137–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x.

DerSimonian, R. and Laird, N., 2015. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45, pp.139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002.

Higgins, J.P., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J.J. and Altman, D.G., 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, pp.557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

Lau, J., Ioannidis, J.P., Terrin, N., Schmid, C.H. and Olkin, I., 2006. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ, 333, pp.597–600. doi: 10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597.

Djeu, G., Shelton, C. and Maganzini, A., 2005. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 128, pp.292–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002.

Lanteri, V., Farronato, G., Lanteri, C., Caravita, R. and Cossellu, G., 2018. The efficacy of orthodontic treatments for anterior crowding with Invisalign compared with fixed appliances using the peer assessment rating index. Quintessence International, 49, pp.581–587.

Gu, J., Tang, J.S., Skulski, B., Fields, H.W., Beck, F.M., Firestone, A.R. and others, 2017. Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the peer assessment rating index. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 151, pp.259–266. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.041.

Kuncio, D., Maganzini, A., Shelton, C. and Freeman, K., 2007. Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Angle Orthodontist, 77, pp.864–869. doi: 10.2319/100106-398.1.

Grunheid, T., Gaalaas, S., Hamdan, H. and Larson, B.E., 2016. Effect of clear aligner therapy on the buccolingual inclination of mandibular canines and the intercanine distance. Angle Orthodontist, 86, pp.10–16. doi: 10.2319/012615-59.1.

Pavoni, C., Lione, R., Lagana, G. and Cozza, P., 2011. Self-ligating versus Invisalign: analysis of dento-alveolar effects. Annals of Stomatology, 2, pp.23–27.

Hennessy, J., Garvey, T. and Al-Awadhi, E.A., 2016. A randomized clinical trial comparing mandibular incisor proclination produced by fixed labial appliances and clear aligners. Angle Orthodontist, 86, pp.706–712. doi: 10.2319/101415-686.1.

Li, W., Wang, S. and Zhang, Y., 2015. The effectiveness of the Invisalign appliance in extraction cases using the ABO model grading system: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 8, pp.8276–8282. [Retracted].

Richmond, S., Shaw, W.C., Roberts, C.T. and Andrews, M., 1992. The PAR index (peer assessment rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. European Journal of Orthodontics, 14, pp.180–187. doi: 10.1093/ejo/14.3.180.

Azaripour, A., Weusmann, J., Mahmoodi, B., Peppas, D., Gerhold-Ay, A., Van Noorden, C. and others, 2015. Braces versus Invisalign®: gingival parameters and patients' satisfaction during treatment: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health, 15, p.69. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0060-4.

Kassam, S. K., & Stoops, F. R. (2020). Are clear aligners as effective as conventional fixed appliances?. Evidence-based dentistry, 21(1), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-020-0079-5

Jaber, S. T., Hajeer, M. Y., Burhan, A. S., Alam, M. K., & Al-Ibrahim, H. M. (2023). Treatment effectiveness of young adults using clear aligners versus buccal fixed appliances in class I malocclusion with first premolar extraction using the ABO-Objective Grading System: A randomized controlled clinical trial. International orthodontics, 21(4), 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2023.100817

Downloads

Published

2025-08-11

How to Cite

1.
Ahmed khalil, Khan O, Syed FA, Bokhari S, Kanju AH, Kausar T, Khan N. The Outcomes, Challenges, And Effectiveness Of Conventional Braces Vs Clear Aligners. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025Aug.11 [cited 2025Oct.12];14(32S):7341-8. Available from: https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/8832

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 32S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.