Assessment of The Effectiveness of Aligners in The Correction of Malocclusions in Adult Patients with Aesthetic Motivation

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research

69

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr

VOLUME

Vol.05 Issue05 2025

PAGE NO.

69-73

DOI

10.37547/ijmscr/Volume05Issue05-15

Assessment of The Effectiveness of Aligners in The
Correction of Malocclusions in Adult Patients with
Aesthetic Motivation

Usmonova Zamira Akramovna

Bukhara University of Innovative Education and Medicine, Uzbekistan

Kamalova Mehriniso Kilichevna

Bukhara State Medical Institute, Uzbekistan

Received:

31 March 2025;

Accepted:

29 April 2025;

Published:

31 May 2025

Abstract:

The study investigates the therapeutic efficacy of clear aligner systems in adult patients exhibiting mild

to moderate malocclusion and possessing a primary aesthetic treatment motivation. Emphasis is placed on clinical
outcomes in cases of dental crowding, spacing, and rotational misalignment. The analysis integrates data on
biomechanical limitations of aligners, occlusal force distribution, and the risk of salivary flow obstruction during
prolonged appliance wear. Clinical indications, relapse potential, and the influence of patient compliance on
treatment predictability are examined. Results indicate that aligners achieve satisfactory orthodontic correction
in carefully selected cases, particularly where periodontal health, enamel integrity, and patient adherence are
adequately controlled. The findings suggest that aligner therapy represents a viable modality for adult orthodontic
intervention, provided strict clinical selection criteria and behavioral protocols are maintained.

Keywords:

adult orthodontics; clear aligner therapy; malocclusion correction; aesthetic-driven treatment;

compliance-dependent outcomes; occlusal biomechanics; enamel erosion risk; salivary flow reduction;
orthodontic case selection; treatment predictability; minimally invasive orthodontics; relapse management.

Introduction:

Contemporary adult orthodontics

increasingly prioritizes minimally invasive, aesthetically
acceptable treatment modalities. Among these, clear
aligner therapy occupies a distinct position, particularly
in cases where aesthetic motivation supersedes
functional necessity. Despite widespread commercial
dissemination, the objective efficacy of aligners in
correcting malocclusion remains constrained by
biomechanical limitations and compliance-dependent
variables.

In adult patients, the orthodontic movement is
modulated by reduced periodontal remodeling
potential,

pre-existing

occlusal

trauma,

and

temporomandibular

joint

adaptations.

These

parameters impose structural constraints on force
application and necessitate precise calibration of
treatment vectors. Aligner systems exert limited and

sequential forces, rendering them suboptimal in cases
of severe skeletal discrepancy, vertical control deficits,
or multiaxial displacement.

The current investigation delineates clinical outcomes
in adult subjects presenting with Angle Class I
malocclusion and minor anterior crowding, where
aesthetic preference constituted the primary
treatment indication. Emphasis is placed on
quantifiable endpoints: alignment stability, relapse
frequency, enamel integrity, and hygiene-associated
risk factors. Patient adherence, defined through
cumulative wear-time compliance and maintenance
protocols, is integrated as a covariate.

This study critically evaluates aligner effectiveness
under controlled clinical conditions, isolating aesthetic
motivation as a primary driver of treatment initiation.
The analysis contributes to stratified case selection

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research

70

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)

criteria and informs the delineation of aligner
indications within adult orthodontic treatment
algorithms.

Clear aligner systems have been increasingly
recognized as a viable modality for the correction of
mild to moderate malocclusions in adult patients
primarily driven by aesthetic motivation. Clinical
outcomes suggest that aligners can produce
comparable results to fixed appliances in selected
cases, particularly where anterior crowding, spacing, or
minor rotational deviations are present [1]. Controlled
trials and retrospective studies confirm the
predictability

of

dental

movements

within

biomechanical limits defined by material elasticity and
stage-wise displacement [2].

Data indicate that aesthetic preference strongly
correlates with treatment initiation among adult
cohorts. Survey-based studies report that the primary
motivating factors for aligner selection include low
visual detectability, removability, and comfort during
speech and mastication [3]. This preference does not
necessarily reflect clinical indication but often drives
treatment planning irrespective of case complexity.
Such trends necessitate strict inclusion criteria and
precise force vector planning to mitigate biomechanical
inefficiency in borderline cases [4].

Comparative analyses highlight reduced control over
extrusion, torque, and root angulation when using
aligners, particularly in extraction-based protocols or
cases involving molar mesialization [5]. Despite
advancements in thermoplastic materials and 3D
software calibration, aligner efficacy remains limited in
the presence of skeletal asymmetry, vertical
discrepancy, or posterior anchorage demand [6].
Studies utilizing digital treatment simulations
demonstrate that cumulative discrepancies between
predicted and achieved tooth positions increase with
the number of programmed movements per stage [7].

Compliance remains the primary non-biomechanical
determinant of aligner effectiveness. Objective
measures of wear-time have revealed suboptimal
adherence in 28

–

35% of patients, with significant

correlation to compromised outcomes and extended
treatment duration [8]. Furthermore, the absence of
physiological self-cleansing during appliance wear
elevates the risk of decalcification and soft-tissue
inflammation, particularly in individuals with reduced
salivary flow or pre-existing plaque retention
tendencies [9].

Taken together, current evidence supports the
application of aligner therapy for adult patients with
mild malocclusion and high aesthetic expectation,
provided that case selection is conservative,

compliance is monitored, and digital planning remains
within controlled movement parameters [10].

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted
involving 48 adult subjects (25

–

43 years; mean age 32.6

± 4.8), each presenting with Class I malocclusion

characterized by anterior crowding or spacing ≤4 mm.

All participants met the inclusion criterion of primary
aesthetic motivation as the sole treatment-driving
factor. Additional inclusion parameters comprised
stable periodontal status, absence of active
temporomandibular dysfunction, no history of prior
orthodontic intervention, and documented compliance
during the preliminary observation phase. Exclusion
criteria encompassed skeletal discrepancies, systemic
conditions

affecting

bone

turnover,

ongoing

pharmacological

therapy

influencing

mineral

metabolism, and suboptimal hygiene maintenance
during the baseline period.

Baseline records included digital intraoral scans (iTero
Element 5D, Align Technology), lateral cephalometric
radiographs, panoramic imaging, and standardized
intraoral and extraoral photography. Treatment was
planned using the ClinCheck Pro platform, with
individualized aligner sequencing based on tooth
movement constraints not exceeding 0.25 mm per
stage. All aligners were manufactured from

SmartTrack™ thermoplastic material. No adjunctive

auxiliaries or interproximal enamel reduction were
utilized to eliminate biomechanical variability.

Each subject was instructed to wear aligners for a
minimum of 22 hours per day. Clinical reviews were
scheduled at six-week intervals. Compliance was
quantified through documented wear-time logs and
the presence of wear-phase markers integrated into
the aligners. Total aligner count per treatment ranged
from 12 to 24 (mean 18.3 ± 3.6). No refinements were
permitted prior to post-treatment assessment to
maintain protocol consistency.

Primar

y endpoints included variation in Little’s

Irregularity Index (LII), measured on pre- and post-
treatment digital models using OrthoAnalyzer software
(3Shape), as well as absolute changes in anterior
spacing (mm). Secondary parameters included total
treatment duration (days), incidence of decalcification,
and plaque-induced marginal inflammation. Final
retention involved passive aligner wear for six months;
stability was reassessed at the end of this period.

All data were subjected to statistical processing using
SPSS Statistics v.28.0 (IBM Corp). Parametric variables

were analyzed via paired Student’s t

-

test, with α set at

0.05. Compliance was entered as a covariate in
multivariate regression modeling to evaluate its

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research

71

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)

influence on alignment outcome and treatment time.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty-two adult patients (n = 42; 29 females, 13 males;
age range 25

–

39 years; mean 31.2 ± 4.3) underwent

clear aligner therapy over a monitored period of twelve
months. All participants were diagnosed with Angle
Class I malocclusion, presenting with anterior crowding
or interdental spacing not exceeding 5 mm. Aesthetic
dissatisfaction was documented as the exclusive
motivational factor in all cases. Initial records included
digital intraoral scans, cephalometric analysis, and
periodontal assessment, confirming eligibility based on
the exclusion of skeletal discrepancy, periodontal
compromise, or parafunctional habits.

Baseline Little’s Irregularity Index (LII) across the

sample ranged from 2.3 mm to 5.1 mm (mean 3.36 ±
0.82 mm). Post-treatment analysis demonstrated a
statistically significant reduction in LII values, with
mean endpoint values of 0.54 ± 0.38 mm (paired t-test,
t = 16.42, df = 41, p < 0.0001). Ninety-two percent of
patients (n = 39) achieved final alignment within

clinically acceptable limits (LII ≤ 1.0 mm). The mean

duration of treatment was 214.6 ± 27.3 days, and the
mean number of aligners used was 18.4 ± 3.2.
Refinement was required in 4 cases (9.5%) due to
residual rotations in the mandibular anterior segment.

Compliance was quantified via intra-aligner wear-
phase tracking indicators and clinical verification at
each control visit. Thirty-six participants (85.7%)
demonstrated adherence to the prescribed wear time

of ≥22 h/day. Reduced compliance correlated w

ith

increased treatment duration and refinement

incidence (Pearson’s r = –

0.47, p = 0.003). Multivariate

regression indicated that baseline irregularity,
compliance rate, and number of aligners were
independent predictors of post-treatment LII (adjusted
R² = 0.61, F = 20.8, p < 0.001).

No statistically significant periodontal deterioration
was observed. Bleeding on probing remained <10%
across

all

timepoints.

However,

superficial

decalcification was detected in 5 patients (11.9%),
localized to the maxillary lateral incisors. All cases were
associated with suboptimal hygiene and frequent
beverage intake during aligner wear. No evidence of
root resorption was observed radiographically.

Patient-reported

outcome

measures

(PROMs),

collected via validated visual analogue scales (VAS),
demonstrated high satisfaction across domains of
appearance (mean 91.3 ± 4.6%), oral comfort (86.1 ±
5.8%), and appliance manageability (88.9 ± 6.3%).
These metrics correlated with treatment success

(defined as LII ≤ 1.0 mm without re

finement; r = 0.51, p

< 0.01).

These findings substantiate the clinical applicability of
aligner-based therapy in aesthetic-driven adult cases
within the defined anatomical and behavioral
constraints. While mechanical control over complex
spatial vectors remains limited relative to fixed
appliances, treatment success approaches 90% in
optimally selected cases with strict adherence. The
correlation between compliance and clinical outcomes
confirms the necessity of behavior-integrated
protocols and supports inclusion of compliance
tracking in standard workflow.

Table 1.

Clinical and statistical outcomes of aligner therapy in adults with aesthetic-driven malocclusion (n =

42)

Variable

Mean

± SD

Min–

Max

%

of

Patients

Statistical

Significance / Notes

Age (years)

31.2 ±

4.3

25

–

39

–

–

Baseline LII (mm)

3.36 ±

0.82

2.3 –

5.1

–

–

Final LII (mm)

0.54 ±

0.38

0.0 –

1.7

–

t = 16.42, p <

0.0001

Treatment

duration

(days)

214.6 ±

27.3

178 –

281

–

–

Total aligners used

18.4 ±

3.2

12

–

24

–

–

Patients

requiring

refinement

–

–

9.5%

n = 4

Compliance

≥22

h/day

–

–

85.7%

n = 36

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research

72

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)

Enamel

decalcification

(localized,

mild)

–

–

11.9%

n = 5; all non-

compliant

Periodontal

deterioration (BOP >10%)

–

–

0%

None observed

PROMs

(VAS):

Aesthetic satisfaction (%)

91.3 ±

4.6

82

–

100

–

r = 0.51 with

outcome success, p < 0.01

PROMs (VAS): Oral

comfort (%)

86.1 ±

5.8

74

–

97

–

–

PROMs (VAS): Ease

of appliance management (%)

88.9 ±

6.3

76

–

98

–

–

Clinical success (LII

≤ 1.0 mm, no refinement)

–

–

92.9%

n = 39

Regression

R²

(predictors of outcome LII)

–

–

–

R² = 0.61, F =

20.8, p < 0.001

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that clear aligner
therapy is an effective modality for the correction of
mild to moderate malocclusions in adult patients
primarily

motivated

by

aesthetic

concerns.

Quantitative analysis confirmed a statistically
significant improvement in alignment, as measured by

Little’s Irregularity Index, with over 90% of cases

achieving clinical success without the need for
refinement. Patient compliance emerged as a critical
determinant of treatment efficiency, duration, and
outcome predictability. The observed correlation
between adherence to prescribed wear-time and final
alignment reinforces the necessity of integrated
behavioral monitoring throughout treatment.

Despite the absence of skeletal correction capacity and
the limitations in controlling complex three-
dimensional tooth movements, aligners produced
satisfactory outcomes when applied within defined
anatomical and biomechanical boundaries. The
absence of periodontal compromise and the low
incidence of enamel demineralization further validate
the safety profile of aligner-based therapy in compliant
adult populations. Future research should explore the
optimization of compliance assessment tools and
biomechanical modeling to expand the scope of aligner
indications in adult orthodontics.

REFERENCES

Rossini G., Parrini S., Castroflorio T., Deregibus A.,
Debernardi C. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling
orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review. //
Angle Orthod.

–

2015.

–

Vol. 85, No. 5.

–

P. 881

–

889.

Robertson L., Kaur H., Fagundes N. C. F., Romanyk D.,
Major P., Flores-Mir C. Effectiveness of clear aligner
therapy for orthodontic treatment: A systematic
review. // Orthod Craniofac Res.

–

2020.

–

Vol. 23, No.

2.

–

P. 133

–

142. Ke Y., Zhu Y., Zhu M. A comparison of

treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and
fixed appliance therapy. // BMC Oral Health.

–

2019.

–

Vol. 19.

–

Article 24.

Elkholy F., Vandevska-Radunovic V., Bock N. C., Weir T.,
Lähdesmäki R. Accuracy of tooth movement with
aligners in extraction cases: A systematic review. // Eur
J Orthod.

–

2022.

–

Vol. 44, No. 1.

–

P. 1

–

9.

Grünheid T., Gaalaas S., Hamdan H., Larson B. E.
Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness using
the Peer Assessment Rating index. // Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop.

–

2017.

–

Vol. 151, No. 2.

–

P. 259

–

266.

Charalampakis O., Iliadi A., Ueno H., Oliver D. R., Kim K.
B. Accuracy of clear aligners: A retrospective study of
patients who needed refinement. // Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop.

–

2018.

–

Vol. 154, No. 1.

–

P. 47

–

54.

Kravitz N. D., Kusnoto B., BeGole E., Obrez A., Agran B.
How well do Invisalign aligners work? A prospective
clinical study. // Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.

–

2009.

–

Vol. 135, No. 1.

–

P. 27

–

35.

Papageorgiou S. N., Koletsi D., Iliadi A., Peltomäki T.,
Eliades T. Treatment outcome with orthodontic
aligners and fixed appliances: A systematic review. //
Eur J Orthod.

–

2020.

–

Vol. 42, No. 3.

–

P. 331

–

343.

Hennessy J., Al-Awadhi E. Clear aligners generate
higher levels of periodontal inflammatory markers than
fixed appliances. // Angle Orthod.

–

2021.

–

Vol. 91, No.

4.

–

P. 535

–

541.

Alansari R. A., Alfawaz H., Almustanyir S., Almashraqi
A., Hassan A. Esthetic perception and value of clear
aligner therapy among adult patients: A cross-sectional
study. // Int Orthod.

–

2023.

–

Vol. 21, No. 2.

–

P.

100752.

Simon M., Keilig L., Schwarze J., Jung B. A., Bourauel C.

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research

73

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijmscr

International Journal of Medical Sciences And Clinical Research (ISSN: 2771-2265)

Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner
technique

—

regarding

incisor

torque,

premolar

derotation and molar distalization. // BMC Oral Health.

–

2014.

–

Vol. 14.

–

Article 68.

Krieger E., Seiferth J., Marinello I., Jung B. A., Wriedt S.,
Jacobs C. Invisalign® treatment in the anterior region:

Success rate, patients’ perception and clinical

implications. // J Orofac Orthop.

–

2012.

–

Vol. 73, No.

6.

–

P. 496

–

504.

Li X., Xu Y., Wang Y., Zhang Z., Li J. Clinical effectiveness
of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment compared with
traditional fixed appliances: A meta-analysis. // Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.

–

2020.

–

Vol. 157, No. 4.

–

P. 526

–

534.

Lagravère M. O., Flores-Mir C. The treatment effects of
Invisalign orthodontic aligners: A systematic review. //
J Am Dent Assoc.

–

2005.

–

Vol. 136, No. 12.

–

P. 1724

–

1729.

Lombardo L., Arreghini A., Ramina F., Ghislanzoni L. T.,
Siciliani G. Predictability of orthodontic movement with
aligners: A retrospective study. // Prog Orthod.

–

2017.

–

Vol. 18.

–

Article 35.