- Visibility 28 Views
- Downloads 27 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijodr.11995.1831150091
-
CrossMark
The evolution and clinical effectiveness of orthodontic appliance designs: A systematic review from pin and tube to ai-guided aligners
- Author Details:
-
Subash Chandra Nayak
-
Anshuman Mishra *
-
Smruti Ranjan Biswal
-
Manisha Khandelwal
-
Gourav Agarwala
Subash Chandra Nayak
Anshuman Mishra *
Smruti Ranjan Biswal
Manisha Khandelwal
Gourav Agarwala
Background: In the last century, there have been significant changes in orthodontic treatment methods, which have progressed from basic mechanical devices to highly complex, digitally operated systems. Increasing emphasis on digital imaging, material science, biomechanics, and patient-focused care has contributed to innovations in equipment design. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-guided aligner systems are one of the most recent innovations that have the ability to revolutionize conservative accuracy and effectiveness.
Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate the evolution of orthodontic appliance designs, ranging from early pin-and-tube systems to modern AI-guided aligners, and to assess their treatment efficiency, patient satisfaction, and clinical effectiveness in terms of long-term outcomes.
Methods: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1950 and 2020. Additional manual searches were performed using orthodontic journals and reference lists. Studies focusing on the development, clinical performance, and comparative effectiveness of orthodontic appliances were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through consensus. A qualitative synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome reporting.
Results: A total of 68 clinical studies have met the inclusion criteria, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, comparative analyses, and systematic reviews. The reviews have highlighted a progressive improvement in aesthetic results with each gradual generation of patient comfort and equipment systems. AI-directed alignment promised initial results in terms of accuracy and low treatment time, although long-term stability data remains limited.
Conclusion: Orthodontic appliance design has evolved to enhance treatment efficiency and patient-centered outcomes. While AI-guided aligner systems represent a significant advancement, traditional fixed appliances continue to play a vital role in managing complex cases. Further high-quality, long-term studies are needed to establish the durability and cost-effectiveness of AI-driven systems compared to conventional methods.
References
- Asbell MB. A brief history of orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98(2):176–83. doi: 10.1016/0889-
[Google Scholar] 5406(90)70012-2. - Angle EH. The latest and best in orthodontic mechanism. Dent Cosmos. 1928;70(12):1143–58. Available from: https://name. umdl.umich.edu/0527912.0070.001
- Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod. 1976;10(2):99–114.
- Sahafian AA, Heravi F, Oshagh M, Adab L. A comparative study of treatment outcomes between begg and edgewise orthodontic systems in class I cases. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2014;11(5):574–8.
- Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003;30(3):262-73. doi: 10.1093/ortho/30.3.262
[Google Scholar] - Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(6):p726.e1-726.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009
[Google Scholar] - Boyd RL. Esthetic orthodontic treatment using the Invisalign appliance for moderate to complex malocclusions. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(8):948–67.
- Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(1):27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.018
[Google Scholar] - Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(5):881–9. doi: 10.2319/061614-436.1
[Google Scholar] - Norman NH, Rosli MM, Al-Jaf NM, Mohammad N, Azizan A, Yusof MYPM. Integration of artificial intelligence in orthodontic imaging: A bibliometric analysis of research trends and applications. Imaging Sci Dent. 2025;55(2):151–64. doi: 10.5624/isd.20240237
[Google Scholar] - Goswami M, Ashutosh, Ayub Y, Sinha R, Suman E, Baisoya S. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: a systematic review. South East Eur J Public Health. 2025;26:3890–5. doi:10.70135/seejph.vi.4679
[Google Scholar] - Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
[Google Scholar] - Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2018.
- Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Deeks JJ, Clarke MJ et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane;
- Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
- Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
[Google Scholar] - Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/Programs/ clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
- Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 2: entering the modern era. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127(4):510–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.002
[Google Scholar] - Elmouden L, Zahour A. Effectiveness and efficiency of orthodontic treatment using fixed appliances versus aligners: A systematic review. 2024. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.113731
[Google Scholar] - Agrawal K, Kangne S, Ambekar A, Joshi Y, Marure P, Khanapure C, et al. Evolution of pre-adjusted edgewise appliance in orthodontics. J Dent Res. 2018;1(1):72–8.
- Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy T, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. The Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):592–601. doi: 10.2319/060208-288.1
[Google Scholar] - Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):438–
- doi: 10.2319/060809-322.1
[Google Scholar] - Regalado-Bazán CF, Espichan-Salazar AC, Arriola-Guillén LE. Comparison of relapse of orthodontic treatment following aligner versus conventional fixed appliance treatment: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2024 May 1;16(5):e586–94. doi: 10.4317/ jced.61520.
- Papadimitriou A, Mousoulea S, Gkantidis N, Kloukos D. Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2018;19(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s40510-018-
[Google Scholar] 0235-z - Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):575–84. doi:
- 2319/081009-454.1.