The impact of physical adjunctive interventions on outcomes of clear aligner treatment: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Maxilla p = 0.869, Mandible p = 0.487

• Effect Size: Maxilla MD = 0.08, Mandible MD = 0.44

• Primary Outcome: Little's Irregularity Index showed no significant improvement

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Vibration improved aligner tracking under 7-day schedule (p = 0.003) but not case completion

• Confidence Interval: Not fully reported for all outcomes

Clinical Application

Limited by lack of consistent evidence and low certainty of findings Relevant to Australian orthodontic practice; TGA approval would be required for specific devices; not currently PBS subsidised Orthodontic patients considering clear aligner treatment with adjunctive interventions

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Physical adjunctive interventions (PAIs), including vibration devices and low-level laser therapy, are promoted to accelerate tooth movement, improve aligner tracking, and reduce discomfort in clear aligner treatment (CAT), but randomized evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to assess whether PAIs improve CAT outcomes in terms of objective tooth-movement metrics, aligner tracking, overall treatment efficiency, and patient-centered outcomes, and to appraise the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level. METHODS: Comprehensive electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were conducted from database inception (earliest available indexing date in each database) to 30 June 2025 (coverage cut-off). Grey literature searching and hand-searching were also performed, with no restrictions on language or publication status. Eligible studies were human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CAT combined with PAIs versus CAT alone or sham interventions. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction, with risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence appraised with GRADE. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when feasible; otherwise, results were narratively summarized. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD420251132229). RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 266 participants were included. No significant improvement in Little's Irregularity Index (maxilla MD = 0.08, p = 0.869; mandible MD = 0.44, p = 0.487). Vibration improved aligner tracking under a 7-day change schedule (p = 0.003) but not case completion (p = 0.999). Overall compliance was approximately 77%, and no between-group difference was observed (p = 0.390). Pain was slightly lower on days 1-3 only (p < 0.05); no quality-of-life benefits were observed; periodontal indices remained unchanged; biomarkers showed inconsistent results. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, suggesting that further well-designed RCTs are likely to change the effect estimates and may alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Across objective tooth-movement metrics, aligner tracking, treatment efficiency, and patient-centered outcomes, current randomized evidence does not demonstrate a consistent benefit of physical adjunctive interventions in clear aligner treatment. Interpretation is limited by outcome-level risk of bias concerns and low to very low certainty of evidence.

References

1. 1.Sirri, M. R., Namera, M. O., & Salahi Alasbahi, M. Y. (2026). The impact of physical adjunctive interventions on outcomes of clear aligner treatment: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346566