# A pilot study comparing virtual treatment setups among clear aligner companies

## TL;DR

This pilot study compares virtual treatment setups from four clear aligner companies to see how their features affect treatment planning.

## Contribution

The study reveals significant differences in aligner and attachment prescriptions among leading clear aligner providers.

## Key findings

- ClearCorrect® prescribed the fewest aligners and attachments, while 3M™ Clarity™ prescribed the most.
- Significant differences were found in the number of aligners, attachments, and final canine relationships.
- ClearCorrect® and Spark™ showed deficiencies in planning for bilateral canine Class I relationship.

## Abstract

This pilot study aims to compare virtual treatment setups provided by four different clear aligner companies, to assess how variations in features might impact treatment planning.

Initial records of 10 patients were submitted to Invisalign®, ClearCorrect®, 3M™ Clarity™, and Spark™. Standardized case prescriptions ensured comparable treatment plans across companies. Comparisons focused on the number of aligners, number of attachments, interproximal reduction per arch, vertical movement of maxillary central incisors, final canine and molar relationships, intercanine and intermolar widths, and expansion or constriction of these widths.

Among the companies, significant differences were found in the number of aligners (p = 0.003), number of attachments (p< 0.001), and final canine relationship (p = 0.013). No statistical differences were observed for the other variables. ClearCorrect® prescribed the fewest number of aligners and attachments, while 3M™ Clarity™ prescribed the most. ClearCorrect® and Spark™ showed deficiencies in planning for bilateral canine Class I relationship.

The unique characteristics of each aligner company result in distinct approaches to treating the same patient, highlighting both areas of discrepancy and consistency in virtual treatment setups.