The possibility of using a clear overlay orthodontic appliance was first introduced in 1946 by Kesling.1 In 1999, Align Technology® (Santa Clara, California) integrated modern technology to develop the clear aligner treatment (CAT) protocol. Because of the improved aesthetics and comfort, increasing numbers of patients prefer CAT over conventional fixed appliances.2,3 Since its introduction, clear aligner (CA) therapy has undergone continuous adjustment and progress, and worldwide, over 14 million patients have been treated using the Invisalign appliance.4
Recently, over 600 papers associated with clear aligner (CA) therapy have been published in the Web of Science Core Collection database. It is meaningful to categorise substantial evidence from massive databases so that researchers may establish innovative outlines of investigation. Bibliometrics has been commonly used to evaluate scientific research both quantitatively and qualitatively.5
In line with previous studies, the present review aims to perform a bibliometric analysis of CA therapy throughout its 20 years of publishing in the scientific literature. According to current knowledge and based on the collected evidence, this is the first bibliometric study of trends related to invisible appliance research. It is expected that the results will identify CA focused research and therefore benefit the development of national and institutional research strategies. In addition, the derived data or evidence can be used to examine the scientific history of investigative outputs and recognise potential future investigative pathways and prospects for collaboration.
The present study gathered original articles published on the Web of Science from 2002 to 2022. To avoid bias caused by daily database updates, the literature search was completed in a single day (2/12/2022), and two observers manually screened studies based on their titles and abstracts. The records were exported in plain text file format as “full record and cited references”. Each record contained relevant analysis information, including title, author, keywords, abstract, and references.
The Web of Science results analysis and citation reports were used to evaluate different aspects of the publications, including the number of publications, the number of citations per year, output author/institution/country ranking, and the ranking of the most cited journal publications/literature/author. The downloaded data were imported into CiteSpace (version 5.7R5W;
The final analysis included 613 studies published by multiple authors from different countries/regions in the field related to clear aligners. As shown in Figure 1, there was an overall upward trend in the number of articles published per year from 2002 to 2022, increasing from 0 to 186 articles. In addition, the articles published from 2002 to 2022 were cited 7342 times. The frequency of citations increased from 0 in 2002 to 2705 in 2022. This indicates that CA and related studies have been expanding and further research is being conducted.
Citation frequency and number of published articles over time.
All articles were classified into the 53 research area categories of the scientific core network, and the top 10 disciplines were ranked according to the number of published articles (Table I). Dentistry and Oral Surgery Medicine had the highest number of publications (430; 70.15%), the highest H-index, and the highest number of citations.
Top 10 Disciplines ranked according to the number of published articles
Rank | Research area | Count | % Of 613 | Sum of cited frequency | Average citations per article | H-Index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Dentistry & Oral Surgery Medicine | 430 | 70.15% | 6400 | 14.88 | 42 |
2 | Materials Science Multidisciplinary | 47 | 7.67% | 246 | 5.23 | 8 |
3 | Physics Applied | 40 | 6.53% | 177 | 4.43 | 8 |
4 | Medicine General Internal | 33 | 5.38% | 186 | 5.64 | 8 |
5 | Chemistry Multidisciplinary | 22 | 3.59% | 35 | 1.59 | 3 |
6 | Engineering Multidisciplinary | 22 | 3.59% | 29 | 1.32 | 3 |
7 | Medicine Research Experimental | 22 | 3.59% | 113 | 5.14 | 5 |
8 | Metallurgy Metallurgical Engineering | 19 | 3.10% | 140 | 7.37 | 7 |
9 | Chemistry Physical | 17 | 2.77% | 139 | 8.18 | 7 |
10 | Physics Condensed Matter | 17 | 2.77% | 139 | 8.18 | 7 |
The total of 613 articles were published in 102 journals. The current top three publishing journals were the
Top 20 Journal with the Largest number of published articles
Number | Journal | Count | % of 613 | H-Index | Sum of cited frequency | Rank | Averange citations | Sum of top 50 most-cited articles | Impact factor (2021) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 79 | 12.89% | 21 | 1627 | 1 | 20.59 | 12 | 2.711 | |
2 | 62 | 10.11 % | 22 | 1504 | 2 | 24.34 | 12 | 2.684 | |
3 | 34 | 5.55% | 15 | 559 | 3 | 16.56 | 4 | 3.247 | |
4 | 21 | 3.43% | 2 | 22 | 1.05 | 2.838 | |||
5 | 20 | 3.26% | 7 | 335 | 5 | 16.80 | 3 | 3.747 | |
6 | 17 | 2.77% | 8 | 138 | 9 | 8.12 | 3.748 | ||
7 | 16 | 2.61% | 2 | 13 | 0.81 | 0.269 | |||
8 | 15 | 2.45% | 8 | 278 | 6 | 18.50 | 2 | 2.341 | |
9 | 14 | 2.28% | 11 | 513 | 4 | 36.64 | 6 | 3.131 | |
10 | 14 | 2.28% | 6 | 181 | 8 | 12.93 | 1 | 1.361 | |
11 | 13 | 2.12% | 4 | 51 | 12.75 | 0.81 | |||
12 | 13 | 2.12% | 7 | 202 | 7 | 15.54 | 2 | 2.563 | |
13 | 10 | 1.63% | 5 | 52 | 5.20 | 0.4 | |||
14 | 10 | 1.63% | 5 | 100 | 10 | 10.00 | 1.34 | ||
15 | 9 | 1.47% | 2 | 13 | 1.44 | 0.5 | |||
16 | 8 | 1.31% | 3 | 34 | 4.25 | 4.614 | |||
17 | 8 | 1.31% | 4 | 49 | 6.13 | 4.964 | |||
18 | 7 | 1.14% | 2 | 9 | 1.29 | 0.19 | |||
19 | 7 | 1.14% | 3 | 55 | 7.86 | 3.246 | |||
20 | 7 | 1.14% | 2 | 20 | 2.86 | 1.172 |
The top 20 journals were selected based on the number of published studies (Table II). The highest citation frequency was closely related to the highest academic impact in each field. Table III provides details of the top 50 most cited articles. The
Top 50 most cited articles on CAT from 2002 to 2022
Rank | Title | First author | Corresponding author(s) | Journal | Year | Total citations | Annual citations | Top 25 citation burst |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review | Rossini, G | Rossini, G | 2015 | 221 | 31.57 | Δ | |
2 | How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign | Kravitz, ND | Kravitz, ND | 2009 | 211 | 16.23 | Δ | |
3 | Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance | Eliades, T | Eliades, T | 2005 | 165 | 9.71 | ||
4 | Outcome assessment of invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system | Djeu, G | Djeu, G | 2005 | 128 | 7.53 | Δ | |
5 | Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner technique - regarding incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization | Simon, M | Simon, M | 2014 | 108 | 13.50 | Δ | |
6 | Forces and moments generated by removable thermoplastic aligners: Incisor torque, premolar derotation, and molar distalization | Simon, M | Simon, M | 2014 | 99 | 12.38 | Δ | |
7 | A comparison of treatment impacts between invisalign aligner and fixed appliance therapy during the first week of treatment | Miller, KB | McGorray, SP | 2007 | 91 | 6.07 | ||
8 | Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment | Weir, T | Weir, T | 2017 | 83 | 16.60 | ||
9 | The treatment effects of invisalign orthodontic aligners - A systematic review | Lagravere, MO | Lagravere, MO | 2005 | 82 | 4.82 | ||
10 | Braces versus Invisalign (R): gingival parameters and patients’ satisfaction during treatment: a cross-sectional study | Azaripour, A | Azaripour, A | 2015 | 77 | 11.00 | Δ | |
11 | Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign (R) orthodontic treatment: a systematic review | Papadimitriou, A | Kloukos, D | 2018 | 74 | 18.50 | ||
12 | Periodontal health during clear aligners treatment: a systematic review | Rossini, G | Rossini, G | 2015 | 71 | 10.14 | Δ | |
13 | Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System | Kuncio, D | Kuncio, D | 2007 | 68 | 4.53 | ||
14 | Influence of attachments and interproximal reduction on the accuracy of canine rotation with invisalign - A prospective clinical study | Kravitz, ND | Kravitz, ND | 2008 | 67 | 4.79 | Δ | |
15 | Invisalign® treatment in the anterior region: Were the predicted tooth movements achieved? | Krieger, E | Krieger, E | 2012 | 66 | 6.60 | Δ | |
16 | Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: A systematic review and meta-analysis | Zheng, M | Yu, Z | 2017 | 65 | 13.00 | ||
17 | Effects of mechanical properties of thermoplastic materials on the initial force of thermoplastic appliances | Kohda, N | Iijima, M | 2013 | 64 | 7.1 1 | Δ | |
18 | Adult patients’ adjustability to orthodontic appliances. Part 1 : a comparison between Labial, Lingual, and Invisalign (TM) | Shalish, M | Shalish, M | 2012 | 64 | 6.40 | ||
19 | Stress relaxation properties of four orthodontic aligner materials: A 24-hr in vitro study | Lombardo, L | Arreghini, A | 2017 | 62 | 12.40 | ||
20 | Activation time and material stiffness of sequential removable orthodontic appliances. Part 1 : Ability to complete treatment | Bollen, AM | Bollen, AM | 2003 | 61 | 3.21 | ||
21 | Has Invisalign improved? A prospective follow-up study on the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign | Haouili, N | Kravitz, ND | 2020 | 58 | 29.00 | ||
22 | Social perceptions of adults wearing orthodontic appliances: a cross-sectional study | Jeremiah, HG | Jeremiah, HG | 2011 | 59 | 5.36 | ||
23 | A comparison of the periodontal health of patients during treatment with the Invisalign® system and with fixed lingual appliances | Miethke, RR | Miethke, RR | 2007 | 59 | 3.93 | ||
24 | Esthetic orthodontic treatment using the invisalign appliance for moderate to complex malocclusions | Boyd, RL | Boyd, RL | 2008 | 58 | 4.14 | Δ | |
25 | How accurate is Invisalign in nonextraction cases? Are predicted tooth positions achieved? | Grunheid, T | Grunheid, T | 2017 | 57 | 11.40 | ||
26 | Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance | Khosravi, R | Khosravi, R | 2017 | 57 | 11.40 | ||
27 | Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating index | Gu,JF | Deguchi, T | 2017 | 57 | 11.40 | ||
28 | Initial Forces and Moments Delivered by Removable Thermoplastic Appliances during Rotation of an Upper Central Incisor | Hahn, W | Hahn, W | 2010 | 57 | 4.75 | Δ | |
29 | Structural conformation and leaching from in vitro aged and retrieved Invisalign appliances | Schuster, S | Bradley, TG | 2004 | 52 | 2.89 | ||
30 | Effectiveness of clear aligner therapy for orthodontic treatment: A systematic review | Robertson, L | Mir, CF | 2020 | 52 | 26.00 | ||
31 | A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies | Ke, YY | Zhu, YF; Zhu, M | 2019 | 52 | 17.33 | ||
32 | Predictability of orthodontic movement with orthodontic aligners: a retrospective study | Lombardo, L | Arreghini, A | 2017 | 52 | 10.40 | ||
33 | Discomfort associated with Invisalign and traditional brackets: A randomized, prospective trial | White, DW | Buschang, PH | 2017 | 52 | 10.40 | Δ | |
34 | Maxillary molar distalization with aligners in adult patients: a multicenter retrospective study | Ravera, S | Ravera, S | 2016 | 52 | 8.67 | ||
35 | Dynamic stress relaxation of orthodontic thermoplastic materials in a simulated oral environment | Fang, DY | Bai, YX | 2013 | 46 | 5.11 | ||
36 | Torquing an upper central incisor with aligners-acting forces and biomechanical principles | Hahn, W | Hahn, W | 2010 | 47 | 3.92 | ||
37 | A novel pressure film approach for determining the force imparted by clear removable thermoplastic appliances | Barbagallo, LJ | Darendeliler, MA | 2008 | 47 | 3.36 | Δ | |
38 | Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment | De Felice, ME | Grassia, V | 2020 | 46 | 23.00 | ||
39 | Accuracy of clear aligners: A retrospective study of patients who needed refinement | Charalampakis, O | Kim, KB | 2018 | 46 | 11.50 | ||
40 | A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with Invisalign ® | Galan-Lopez, L | Galan-Lopez, L | 2019 | 45 | 15.00 | ||
41 | The predictability of transverse changes with Invisalign | Houle, JP | Pinheiro, FHSL | 2017 | 44 | 8.80 | ||
42 | Clinical limitations of invisalign | Phan, X | Phan, X | 2007 | 42 | 2.80 | ||
43 | Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta-analyses | Papageorgiou, SN | Eliades, T | 2020 | 42 | 21.00 | ||
44 | Effects of variable attachment shapes and aligner material on aligner retention | Dasy, H | Kwak, JH | 2015 | 42 | 6.00 | ||
45 | Initial forces generated by three types of thermoplastic appliances on an upper central incisor during tipping | Hahn, W | Hahn, W | 2009 | 42 | 3.23 | ||
46 | Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces | Buschang, PH | Buschang, PH | 2014 | 41 | 5.13 | ||
47 | Periodontal health during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances A meta-analysis | Jiang, Q | Li, H | 2018 | 40 | 10.00 | ||
48 | Variables affecting orthodontic tooth movement with clear aligners | Kuroda, S | Kuroda, S | 2014 | 38 | 4.75 | Δ | |
49 | Twitter analysis of the orthodontic patient experience with braces vs Invisalign | Noll, D | Shroff, B | 2017 | 38 | 7.60 | ||
50 | Preparation and characterization of thermoplastic materials for invisible orthodontics | Zhang, N | Bai, Y | 2011 | 37 | 3.36 |
Figure 2 shows the global distribution of published literature in CA therapy and related research areas. Table IV lists the top 10 countries with the most published literature from 1992 to 2022, with Italy, the United States of America and China accounting for 23.16% (142), 18.92% (116) and 16.31% (100) of all published literature, respectively. The top three total citation frequencies came from the United States (2132), Italy (1543) and China (987). The United States of America is the centre of co-operation between countries/regions, with the closest relationships occurring between Germany, Canada, and other countries (Figure 2).
Co-occurrence network map of countries/regions.
Top 10 Countries ranked by the number of published articles
Number | Country | Count | % of 613 | Sum of times cited | Average citation per article | H-Index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Italy | 142 | 23.16% | 1543 | 10.87 | 22 |
2 | U. S. A | 116 | 18.92% | 2132 | 18.38 | 26 |
3 | People R China | 100 | 16.31% | 987 | 9.87 | 19 |
4 | Canada | 40 | 6.53% | 538 | 13.45 | 13 |
– | Germany | 35 | 5.71% | 958 | 27.37 | 16 |
6 | Australia | 32 | 5.22% | 265 | 8.28 | 6 |
7 | Saudi Arabia | 29 | 4.73% | 111 | 3.83 | 5 |
8 | Greece | 24 | 3.92% | 582 | 24.25 | 12 |
– | India | 23 | 3.75% | 125 | 5.43 | 5 |
– | Switzerland | 22 | 3.59% | 337 | 15.32 | 10 |
There is a significant level of collaboration between institutions. The University of Ferrara, University of L’Aquila, University of Turin, Sichuan University, University of Roma Tor Vergata, University of Alberta, University of Queensland, and Capital Medical University were the most productive, influential, and central institutions in the field based on the number of published studies, citation frequency and collaborations (Figure 3).
Co-occurrence network map of institutions.
The top 10 authors are listed in Table V and are ranked according to the number of published articles and citations. The authors who produced the most published articles were Castroflorio (21 articles; 3.42% of the total number of published articles). The authors whose articles had been cited more than 400 times were Castroflorio (cited 535 times in total; cited 25.48 per study), Deregibus (480; 30.00), and Eliades (475, 36.54).
The Top 10 authors with the largest number of published articles and citation (December 31, 2022)
Number | Author | Count | % of 613 | Number | Author | Sum of times cited | Average citation per article |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Castroflorio T | 21 | 3.42% | 1 | Castroflorio T | 535 | 25.48 |
2 | Deregibus A | 16 | 2.61% | 2 | Deregibus A | 480 | 30.00 |
– | Siciliani G | 16 | 2.61% | 3 | Eliades T | 475 | 36.54 |
4 | Weir T | 15 | 2.45% | 4 | Rossini G | 396 | 39.60 |
5 | Vaid NR | 14 | 2.28% | 5 | Parrini S | 369 | 36.90 |
6 | Eliades T | 13 | 2.12% | 6 | Kravitz ND | 358 | 71.60 |
– | Lombardo L | 13 | 2.12% | 7 | Siciliani G | 271 | 16.94 |
7 | Parrini S | 10 | 1.63% | 8 | Lombardo L | 259 | 19.92 |
– | Cozza P | 10 | 1.63% | 9 | Simon M | 207 | 41.4 |
– | D’anto V | 10 | 1.63% | 10 | Bai Y | 154 | 25.67 |
Citation ‘bursts’ are articles that have seen a significant increase in citations over a short period and may reflect the focus of research at that time. The top 25 studies with the highest burst values are shown in Figure 4. Nine of the articles reported on the comparison between clear aligners and traditional fixed orthodontic appliances (2, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25). Seven studies focused on the accuracy of clear aligners (4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17), while five studies reported the periodontal health of patients treated with clear aligners (12, 18, 19, 20, 22). Other topics included orthodontic force, attachments, material science and clear aligner generations.
Top 25 References with the Strongest Citation Burst Value.
Keywords can accurately reflect the research focus of a certain period. Therefore, detecting emergent keywords can help summarise the development of research frontiers and explore new topics. The nine most frequently cited keywords are provided in Figure 5. The keywords with the longest use include orthodontic treatment, digital orthodontics, superimposition, and apical root resorption.
Top 9 most frequently cited keywords.
The present study shows that CA therapy and related studies have received greater attention and that the total number of published papers has increased over time. Table II lists the journals that have the more relevant articles, are most cited, and have a greater impact. It is recommended that scholars read relevant journal articles and that authors submit manuscripts on relevant topics to these journals.
There is a rich collaboration between different countries/regions, especially between Western countries (Figure 2). Italy ranks first in the number of published articles and has the top 3 most productive institutions involved in CA research. In addition, the U.S.A. ranks first in the frequency of citations and has a high centrality, indicating that it is at the forefront of the field and at the centre of international collaboration (Table IV). Seven of the top 10 producing countries are non-English speaking, indicating a global trend in the distribution of research in this field (Table IV). Moreover, three of the top 10 publishing countries are from Asia where clinical research may benefit from a relatively large patient population.
The most influential and productive institutions and authors correspond to the countries/regions with the most published literature and most frequent citations. Collaborations and consultants from the institutions that publish the most literature and cite most frequently is encouraged. Collaboration between institutions is common but is mainly regional (Figure 3).
Citations of key literature were based on centrality value, citation frequencies, and burst value. By analysing the labels, keyword bursts, and key literature for each cluster, it was found that the most popular and recent research focus in the field included the following areas.
Clear aligners have been considered as an alternative to fixed orthodontics appliances (FOA). Since the introduction of a tooth positioning appliance to refine the final stages of orthodontic treatment, Kesling foresaw that more ambitious tooth movement could be achieved with a series of aligners. Later, Ponitz (1971) and Sheridan (early 1990s) proposed the “Invisible Retainer” producing minor tooth movements with individual aligners, after learning from Kesling’s concept of pre-positioning teeth on a master study model. The major limitation of the described treatment methods is that only minor tooth movements could be achieved because of the technical difficulty of dividing larger overall movement into smaller and precise stages.7 The Invisalign® system was released by Align technology in 1998 and was the first orthodontic appliance to use computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) in conjunction with laboratory techniques. This development made Kesling’s early idea a reality. Since their advent, the aligner systems have grown rapidly to achieve improved tooth alignment and occlusion.8 In the early 21st century, most clinicians considered the technique only suitable for simple cases such as Angle Class I malocclusion, the improvement of mild crowding, and 3 to 6 mm of space closure.7,9 With continuous advances in attachments, materials, and orthodontic force, clear aligners have been applied to a variety of more complex malocclusions.10,11
Several top clusters (ranks 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 24, 26, 30, 31, 34, 40, 42, 43, 46) were associated with the clinical scope and the limitations of CA therapy in orthodontic treatment.6,12–23 The most-cited article on orthodontic treatment (rank 1) by Rossini6 reported that CA therapy is effective in anterior tooth intrusion, posterior buccolingual tooth inclination, and upper molar bodily movements of about 1.5 mm. Ravera et al.21 reported that CA therapy associated with composite attachments and class II elastics can distalise maxillary first molars by 2.5 mm. Buschang et al.24 reported that CA therapy required significantly (
Digital orthodontic technology allows three-dimensional (3D) image manipulation through computer software and 3D printing of custom devices made of different materials. Of the orthodontic applications, a series of custom-made clear aligners that move the teeth throughout the entire treatment period are supported by three pillars: digital image acquisition of the patient’s dental arch, visualisation and processing of the images using specific software, and the 3D printing of files.25
A conventional study model is based on the acquisition of a physical impression and the subsequent casting of plaster models. Compared to a conventional impression, intraoral scanning directly captures optical impressions, offering shorter chair time, a reduction of consumables costs, greater patient comfort and a high digital accuracy. Like other 3D scanners, the intraoral scanner captures images through the projection of a laser light source or structured light without interacting with biological tissue.26 These devices provide specific software for processing data and generating 3D virtual images of the dental arches.
The arch surface morphology data is usually saved on the computer as a Standard Triangular Language (STL) format file. The virtual dental casts allow clinicians to quickly obtain diagnostic information related to arch width and perimeter, model discrepancies, a Bolton discrepancy, overjet, and overbite. Several studies27-31 (ranks 15, 32, 38, 41, 48) used an electronic digital calliper to make measurement on STL-generated dental casts. Moreover, an optical impression makes patients feel more involved in their treatment and is a powerful tool to establish more effective communication.32,33
The most common use of technical processes in orthodontics is the digital setup and fabrication of clear aligners. Traditionally, an orthodontic setup from crown separation to repositioning in wax, are performed on plaster models. With the help of digital technology, orthodontic treatment simulation processes have become faster and more practical. The model for the reference treatment phase can be automatically generated by the setup software and used for orthodontic appliance production.34
Applying digital technology in orthodontics aims to reduce the professional’s chair and laboratory time, as well as make treatment faster, predictable, aesthetic, and more comfortable for patients. It may be concluded that the advent of digital orthodontic technology is a unique evolutionary milestone in orthodontic history, as it offers great possibilities for use in clinical practice, with potential benefits for both patients and practitioners.
It is noteworthy that, unlike actual biological dental movements, virtual movements are infinite and often the results may not be realistic.35 The ability to measure the amount of tooth movement is important for assessing orthodontic treatment outcomes. An analysis of tooth movement allows clinicians to better understand orthodontic biomechanics, the speed and type of movement, as well as the efficiency of therapeutic interventions. The use of 3D scanners in dentistry provides a non-invasive method for measuring dental changes because it does not expose the patient to radiation.36 In addition, 3D-model rendering by most scanners is considered accurate and reliable. Of the most-cited publications (ranks 2, 5, 14, 21, 25, 39), there were several studies using superimposition to calculate the mean accuracy of tooth movement. The most cited article (overall rank 2) was by Kravitz,37 who measured the mean movement accuracy of 401 anterior teeth by the overlay of the virtual models.
Digital maxillary study casts are more commonly used to measure tooth movement because the palatal vault is considered stable throughout treatment for the evaluation of tooth positional change.38,39 Several investigators have suggested using the medial point38,40 or the medial two-thirds of the third palatal fissure41,42 as a reference landmark for maxillary cast superimposition.41 However, the mandibular arch lacks stable landmarks, and requires the use of a combination of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images to digitally align the surface superimposition of the model on the mandibular basal bone structure.43
Root resorption is an unavoidable sequela of orthodontic tooth movement. In addition to genetic influences and trauma, orthodontic treatment is a factor that may lead to partial resorption of the root apices of the teeth,44 generally called external apical resorption (EARR). Age, the force applied during treatment, extraction or non-extraction conditions, treatment duration, the distance of tooth movement and the level of pre-treatment root resorption are factors that impact on root resorption.45 Because EARR is irreversible and may affect tooth longevity, it is important for the clinician to determine changes in root resorption during orthodontic treatment. Several studies have examined the effect of CA therapy on EARR, but there is disagreement regarding the level of EARR. Gandhi et al.46 concluded that the mean root resorption for the permanent maxillary incisors was in the range of 0.25 mm to 1.13 mm (overall: 0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75 mm). Previous studies have reported that root resorption associated with CA therapy for the maxillary permanent incisors was less than for fixed orthodontic appliances, but was not statistically significant, except for tooth 12. This effect may result from the decreased magnitude of force delivered by CA therapy compared to FOA or due to discontinuous force application with CA therapy.47,48
Pain complaints are a common feature of the orthodontic treatment process49 and directly affect patient satisfaction.50 It has also become a principal topic in the field and clusters 7, 18, 33 were found to be related to this issue.51–53 During orthodontic treatment, it is common to feel pain and discomfort, reaching a peak at 24 hrs after force application but imperceptible after 7 days. However, removable appliances produce intermittent forces, which allow the tissues to re-organise before compressive forces are reapplied48 and have a reduction in the level of pain and discomfort reported by patients.54 Most studies found that patients treated by CA therapy experienced less pain than those treated by FOA during the first week of orthodontic treatment.55
Like other bibliometric analyses, the present study had limitations. The first relates to the time delay as recently published high-quality studies and highlights may have been excluded because of insufficient citation. Secondly, although the analysis was conducted objectively by software, there is an inherent subjective bias in the interpretation of the results.
Despite the limitations, the study has relevance in the field as it systematically analysed the developments, priorities, and trends in CA therapy. New research should carefully consider the most popular and recent clusters and read references applying high median centroids, citation frequencies, and citation burst values.
Over time, research in CA therapy and its related fields has been gaining popularity and expanding globally. The present analysis indicates that the treatment outcomes of CA therapy and adverse factors are the focus of current studies and the direction of future research. Further, this bibliometric analysis may provide a valuable reference on critical issues and help researchers efficiently and effectively explore the CA therapy field.