CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF ALIGNER THERAPY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL BRACES IN THE CORRECTION OF TOOTH CROWDING

Abstract

Tooth crowding is one of the most frequently diagnosed malocclusions in orthodontic practice and can negatively affect aesthetics, oral function, and periodontal health. With advancements in orthodontic technology, both clear aligner therapy and conventional fixed braces are widely used for the correction of dental crowding. This study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of aligner therapy and traditional bracket systems in the management of tooth crowding. The comparison focuses on treatment effectiveness, duration, precision of tooth movement, patient comfort, oral hygiene status, periodontal health, and overall patient satisfaction. Evidence suggests that conventional braces provide predictable and efficient correction, particularly in moderate to severe crowding and complex tooth movements. In contrast, aligner therapy demonstrates comparable effectiveness in mild to moderate cases, offering advantages in aesthetics, comfort, and ease of maintaining oral hygiene. However, the success of aligner treatment largely depends on patient compliance. The findings indicate that both modalities are clinically effective, and treatment selection should be individualized based on case complexity, biomechanical requirements, and patient preferences.