Evaluating the Clinical Success of Clear Aligners for Rotational Tooth Movements in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Despite the widespread adoption of clear aligner therapy (CAT), its effectiveness in managing rotations remains debated. This systematic review aims to evaluate rotational accuracy in adults and the influence of treatment variables—such as attachments, interproximal reduction (IPR), and staging. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, seven databases and two grey literature sources were searched up to July 2025. Eligible studies assessed rotational accuracy in patients treated exclusively with clear aligners, using 3D digital model superimposition. Primary outcomes included percent accuracy, lack of correction (LC), or mean absolute error (MAE). Risk of bias (RoB 2, ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (GRADE) were assessed. Results: Twelve studies (one RCT, eleven non-randomized) were included, showing wide heterogeneity in aligner systems, tooth types, outcome measures, and adjunctive strategies. Reported accuracy ranged from 36% to 85%, averaging around 65%. LC values varied from 0.7° to 4.5°, and mean MAE was about 2.3°. Incisors and molars showed higher predictability, whereas maxillary canines and premolars remained the least reliable. Attachments and IPR were widely used, but their effectiveness was inconsistent. Staging protocols were generally set at 2°/aligner and most studies adopted 7–14-day wear schedules. Nearly all investigations showed moderate-to-serious risk of bias, and certainty of evidence was rated low to moderate. Conclusions: CAT shows limited yet improving predictability in rotational movements, with performance strongly influenced by tooth morphology and staging. Attachments, IPR, and overcorrections may contribute but lack consistent validation. Given the low certainty and high risk of bias of current evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Well-designed RCTs with standardized protocols are required to develop reliable clinical guidelines.