Assessment of clear aligner accuracy of 2 clear aligners systems

Introduction: This study compared treatment efficacy for specific tooth movements between 2 clear aligner sys-tems (Clarity [3M Oral Care Solutions, St Paul, Minn] and Invisalign [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif]). Methods: The study sample included 47 patients (7 males, 40 females; mean age, 36.57 +/- 15.97 years) treated with Invisalign and 37 (4 males, 33 females; mean age, 34.30 +/- 16.35 years) treated with Clarity aligners who completed their first set of aligners and had an initial refinement scan. Initial and predicted models were obtained from the initial simulated treatment plan. The first model of the refinement scan was labeled as achieved. Sli-cerCMF software (version 3.1; http://www.slicer.org) was used to superimpose the achieved and predicted dig-ital models over the initial ones with regional superimposition on the relatively stable first molars. Nine hundred forty teeth in the Invisalign system were measured for horizontal, vertical, and angular movements and trans-verse width and compared with similar measurements of 740 teeth for the Clarity aligners. The deviation from the predicted was calculated and compared between both systems. Results: The deviation achieved from the predicted was significant between the groups for the mandibular interpremolar and intercanine widths (P \0.05). Clarity aligners significantly undercorrected rotations compared with Invisalign for the mandibular first premolars, mandibular canines, maxillary canines, and maxillary central incisors. There was no statistically sig-nificant difference between the groups for the achieved vs predicted movements in the horizontal and vertical planes (P .0.05). Conclusions: The efficacy of clear aligner therapy systems (Clarity and Invisalign) in treating mild and moderate malocclusions was comparable. Deviation of the achieved movements from the predicted was greatest for rotational and vertical movements. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2023;164:793-804)