You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Medicina
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

19 June 2025

Scoping Review—The Effectiveness of Clear Aligners in the Management of Anterior Open Bite in Adult Patients

,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy from Iasi, 16 Universitatii Str., 700115 Iasi, Romania
2
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina2025, 61(6), 1113;https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61061113
This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Orthodontics and Dental Medicine
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Anterior open-bite malocclusion remains a challenging orthodontic condition where achieving a positive overbite necessitates precise control of incisor extrusion and molar intrusion. With recent advances in clear aligner therapy—improved materials, attachment techniques and digital treatment planning—the potential for non-invasive treatment has increased. This scoping review systematically maps the evidence on the efficacy of clear aligners in treating anterior open bite among adult patients, outlines treatment protocols and highlights gaps in the literature. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase/ScienceDirect and Clarivate/Web of Science for literature published in English between January 2000 and December 2024. Studies involving adult patients treated with clear aligners (predominantly Invisalign®) were included. A two-step screening process was applied, and data were charted according to pre-specified criteria. The review adheres to the PRISMA-ScR checklist guidelines. Results: From an initial pool of 802 articles, 30 met the inclusion criteria following duplicate removal and full-text screening. The evidence suggests that clear aligners can achieve measurable incisor extrusion and posterior intrusion when appropriate auxiliary techniques (e.g., attachments and mini screws) are used. However, digital treatment planning software may overestimate movement predictions, necessitating iterative refinement phases. Patient compliance, clinician expertise and technological limitations are key factors influencing outcomes. Conclusions: Clear aligner therapy represents a promising alternative to fixed appliances for anterior open-bite correction in adults, although challenges remain in achieving precise vertical control. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials and standardized outcome measures are needed to confirm long-term stability and efficacy.

1. Introduction

The orthodontic treatment of anterior open bite aims to guide the extrusion of the upper and lower incisors and the molar intrusion to achieve a positive overbite. The lower molar intrusion leads to counterclockwise mandibular rotation. Treatment outcomes might cause esthetic drawbacks of facial profile and smile due to the persistence of large mandibular and occlusal plane angles []. Improvements in anterior extrusion and posterior intrusion, added in 2011, when Invisalign® clear aligners were provided with additional attachments, mini-screws and mini-plates, make it worth reconsidering the earlier reluctance to use aligners for open-bite treatment []. A meta-analysis on the long-term stability of anterior open-bite treatment, with the last literature search performed in April 2009, reported solely fixed orthodontic appliances as a means of nonsurgical treatment []. However, a later review, based on a search up to April 2019, found that clear aligners (CAs) can be used in anterior open-bite cases caused by the intrusion of anterior teeth [].
Open-bite malocclusions of transversal, sagittal or vertical cause can be treated with CAs. The decision for posterior intrusion or upper incisor extrusion is made following a smile analysis and the evaluation of the facial lower-third type. Attachments are required for the anterior extrusion. Open bites are classified as mild (up to −2 mm), moderate (−3 mm to −4 mm) and severe (higher than −4 mm). In easy open-bite cases treated with a CA, no posterior intrusion is required, whereas a posterior intrusion of less than 1 mm should be achieved in moderate cases, and auxiliary techniques are necessary in complex open-bite cases [].
An updated scoping review of the evidence in the literature on clear aligner efficacy in open-bite treatment in adult patients could provide useful information in a rapidly evolving field. By identifying the benefits of CAs other than esthetic ones in the most difficult to correct malocclusions, more patients and dentists could be encouraged to abandon braces in favor of CAs, which have the advantage of less chair time, minimal adverse effects on gingival health and the possibility of carrying out the entire procedure digitally. In the opinion of some professionals, the disadvantage of CAs is that they still have significant limitations in the treatment of complex malocclusions [,,]. The addition of attachments and temporary anchorage devices and more predictable digital simulations will continuously change the outcomes of open-bite treatment using CAs [].
The primary objective of this scoping review is to map and synthesize the current evidence on the efficacy of CAs in treating anterior open-bite malocclusion in adult patients. The specific aims are the following:
-
Map the literature on treatment protocols (e.g., anterior extrusion, posterior intrusion and refinement procedures) employed with CAs;
-
Evaluate clinical outcomes comparing incisor and molar movements, overbite correction and mandibular rotation effects;
-
Identify key influencing factors—patient compliance, clinician expertise and aligner material properties—and outline potential limitations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Question & Protocol

The research question was formulated to strike a balance between specificity and breadth—precise enough to facilitate the identification of relevant studies yet broad enough to capture the full scope of the topic. Specifically, this review seeks to answer the following: “Are clear aligners effective in the management of anterior open bite in adult patients?”
Based on the main research question, the review protocol was developed in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR [] (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The PICC framework (Population—adult patients (≥18 years) with anterior open-bite malocclusion, Intervention—clear aligner therapy, Concept—effectiveness of CAs in correcting anterior open bite, Context—orthodontic treatment settings, regardless of the geographical location or practice type) was used to structure the review approach and eligibility criteria.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:
-
Population: adult patients (≥18 years) with anterior open-bite malocclusion;
-
Intervention: treatment with CA;
-
Study Designs: case reports/series, retrospective and prospective observational studies and randomized controlled trial studies (RCTs);
-
Language: articles published in English from January 2000 to December 2024.
Exclusion Criteria:
-
Studies focusing on pediatric/adolescent patients (due to differences in growth dynamics);
-
Studies lacking detailed methodological descriptions concerning treatment planning and outcome evaluation;
-
Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

2.3. Information Sources and Search Strategy

A systematic literature search was independently conducted by two reviewers, utilizing a combination of controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and free-text keywords. The databases searched included PubMed/Medline, Embase/ScienceDirect and Clarivate/Web of Science, covering the period from January 2000 to December 2024. The final search was conducted on 15 February 2025.
The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and free-text keywords, including “anterior open bite” AND (“clear aligner” OR “Invisalign”) using Boolean operators (AND/OR) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Database query details.

2.4. Selection of Sources of Evidence

Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers, following a two-stage screening process. Initially, all retrieved references were imported into Zotero 6.0.27 software, for management and deduplication. Titles and abstracts were then screened for relevance based on the predefined inclusion criteria. Articles that appeared eligible underwent full-text review to confirm inclusion. Inter-reviewer reliability was assessed during the full-text screening phase using Cohen’s kappa, yielding a value of 0.83, indicating strong agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. The final set of included studies was subjected to detailed analysis.
To ensure comprehensive coverage, additional searches were conducted in OpenGrey and Google Scholar to identify relevant gray literature. These searches yielded no additional eligible studies. All sources were screened using the same eligibility criteria as for peer-reviewed literature.
The study selection process is outlined in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2).
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection.

2.5. Data Charting Process

Data extraction was carried out by two independent reviewers using a pre-designed standardized data extraction form. Extracted variables included the following:
-
Publication data;
-
Study design, type of intervention and sample size;
-
Description of the clear aligner treatment protocol (treatment phases, including anterior extrusion, posterior intrusion, refinements and auxiliary devices);
-
Outcome measures: overbite correction, incisor extrusion and molar intrusion values, mandibular rotation and treatment duration;
-
Reported limitations and recommendations;
-
Main conclusions as reported by the study authors.
In cases where there was uncertainty or disagreement regarding data extraction, discrepancies were resolved through discussion and mutual agreement.

2.6. Synthesis of Results

Data were synthesized descriptively. The findings were categorized thematically to reflect the treatment protocols, clinical efficacy and influencing factors. Tables were used to visually summarize outcomes and study characteristics according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

The initial database search identified 802 articles. After the removal of duplicates and screening based on title/abstract and eligibility, 30 articles were included following full-text review. The study selection process is detailed in Figure 2.

3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies

The included literature comprised 13 case reports studies, 3 case series studies and 14 observational studies (13 retrospective studies and 1 prospective cohort study). The study sample sizes varied, and the treatment outcomes were primarily reported in terms of incisor and molar movements, overbite correction and the frequency of required refinements.
Table 1 presents a comprehensive synthesis of key biomechanical considerations, treatment refinements, retention strategies and influencing factors associated with anterior open-bite correction using CAs, supported by relevant scholarly references. Table 2 summarizes the patient parameters involved in the treatment decision making. Table 3 summarizes the clinician-related factors involved in the treatment plans. Table 4 summarizes key clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of CAs in the correction of anterior open bite, detailing study designs, participant characteristics, biomechanical mechanisms of bite closure and measured treatment outcomes.
Table 1. Key biomechanical considerations and influencing factors in open-bite correction with clear aligners.
Table 2. Factors influencing treatment pertaining to patient characteristics.
Table 3. Factors influencing treatment with reference to orthodontists.
Table 4. Summary of clinical observational studies evaluating clear aligner efficacy in the correction of anterior open bite.
Sixteen studies focused on Invisalign® treatment protocols, likely due to the widespread use of the ClinCheck® Pro 6.0 digital treatment planning software (Table 5), whereas the remaining fourteen studies either did not specify the aligner system used or employed other clear aligner systems without detailed protocol descriptions.
Table 5. Invisalign®-based studies on antersior open-bite treatment.
Several case reports have highlighted the versatility and clinical potential of clear aligner therapy in managing anterior open-bite and complex malocclusions. Waxler (2021) [] described the successful correction of skeletal open bite using clear aligners combined with miniscrews, emphasizing the role of skeletal anchorage in enhancing vertical control. Vadera et al. (2023) [] reported nonsurgical management of a skeletal Class III malocclusion with dentoalveolar open bite, demonstrating the efficacy of clear aligners in addressing challenging sagittal and vertical discrepancies without surgery.
Gudhimella et al. (2022) [] detailed the management of anterior open bite in a skeletal Class II hyperdivergent patient using clear aligner therapy, further reinforcing the appliance’s role in treating difficult vertical skeletal patterns. Greco et al. (2021) [] reported successful anterior open-bite closure in an adult using clear aligners combined with micro-osteoperforations to enhance vertical control and treatment efficiency.
El-Bialy (2020) [] presented a unique case combining high-frequency vibration with clear aligners to treat an adult patient with Class III skeletal malocclusion, open bite and severe bimaxillary protrusion, suggesting adjunctive therapies may optimize treatment outcomes. Tepedino et al. (2023) [] illustrated the integration of clear aligners with myofunctional appliances to achieve anterior open-bite closure, supporting a multidisciplinary approach. Wen et al. (2022) [] documented the clear aligner treatment of an adult with severe anterior open-bite malocclusion, highlighting the appliance’s capacity for significant vertical correction. Rodriguez (2012) [] demonstrated a non-extraction treatment of a Class II open bite in an adult patient using clear aligners, underscoring their applicability in varied malocclusion types. Lastly, Haubrich and Schupp (2023) [] provided a comprehensive overview of open-bite treatment with aligner orthodontics, including clinical case examples, emphasizing biomechanical considerations. Collectively, these case reports enrich the evidence base by showcasing innovative protocols, adjunctive techniques and clinical outcomes supporting the effectiveness of clear aligners in anterior open-bite correction.

4. Discussion

4.1. Treatment Goals

The treatment aims to close the dental open bite through anterior extrusion, posterior intrusion with arch expansion, flattening of the curve of Spee and, if necessary, myofunctional tongue therapy, usually in patients with tongue thrusting habits []. However, the upper anterior extrusion is considered unstable and detrimental to periodontal health and smile esthetics, which is why mandibular molar intrusion and mandibular incisor extrusion could be an alternative []. Counterclockwise rotation of the mandible is necessary for establishing an anterior overbite []. Open-bite treatment with aligners also causes significant incisor retraction []. The positive overbite of the upper and lower incisors is achieved by reducing overbite. Extractions are also used for closing the open bite with an expected protraction induced by the closure of the extraction space [].
Some reports of solving skeletal open bite exclusively with aligners and without surgery [] were criticized as not being sustained by the superimposition cephalometric radiographs [,], with the growth process being a risk of bias in a 16-year-old patient. A skeletal open-bite closure with a CA, intermaxillary elastics and composite veneers on the upper lateral incisors showed good stability after 5 years in a non-growing patient aged 19 []. A more recent case report of a 35-year-old patient with hypodivergent facial type, skeletal Class III malocclusion and anterior open bite managed to achieve an overjet of 2.4 mm and an overbite of 0.5 mm with a CA and optimized attachments with gingival bevels placed on the anterior teeth and on the maxillary arch [].

4.1.1. Desired Tooth Movements

Tooth movements and forces that are difficult to achieve with CAs include incisor torque control during retraction, extrusion and canine rotation []. Rotations and intrusions must be overcorrected at the end of each movement. The anterior open-bite treatment has an increased risk of posterior open bite and increased overbite, since the elastic CAs are prone to horizontal deformation. This can be avoided by diversifying the aligner-induced forces. Planning a mandibular reverse curve of Spee and an accentuated maxillary curve of Spee and using attachments with elastics on the upper and lower premolars were proposed as an answer to these problems []. Digital models of tooth movements and plan attachments are divided into stages by software that provide a visual analysis of open-bite treatment []. CAs use computer-aided planning of forces that induce tooth movements and support the teeth on their buccal, labial, mesial, distal, lingual and occlusal surfaces.

4.1.2. Posterior Intrusion and/or Anterior Extrusion

The intrusive force exerted on the posterior segments by aligners for the counterclockwise rotation of the mandible is not merely generated by the thickness of Invisalign®, which is only 0.76 mm per dental arch. Instead, this intrusive force must be programmed with ClinCheck ® 5.2 [], by adding posterior occlusal bite-block attachments, but more recent research has shown that they have no impact on the efficacy of open-bite treatment []. However, other authors suggest that no planning is required, arguing that the bite block effect created by the thickness of the aligner’s thermoplastic material on posterior teeth is helped by the patient’s biting force, leading to an intrusion of the maxillary mesiobuccal cusps of 0.47 mm and to a bite deepening effect [].
The anterior extrusion necessary for open-bite treatment requires a strong posterior anchorage. This is achieved by aligner attachments used as retention auxiliaries and force delivery systems. Attachments help control the posterior molar torque. Mini-plates, mini-screws and elastics are recommended for posterior intrusion in cases of excessive gingival display or in skeletal open bite. They improve the molar intrusion caused by the thickness of the thermoplastic aligner materials through the bite block effect and by the occlusal forces of chewing and swallowing. Posterior bite blocks on the occlusal surfaces of molars should be also considered in some patients []. The anterior distalization achieved with mini-screws, mini-plates and extractions can be improved by applying power arms for better root control and by using elastics attached on the lower first molars and upper canines. The intermaxillary elastics provide better anchorage and prevent the bowing effect []. The attachments can be placed a few weeks after starting wearing the aligner, allowing for gradual adaptation []. Alternation of active and inactive distalization periods could be a way of overcoming the disadvantage of the uniform thickness of aligners. The anterior retraction can be planned as canine distalization, incisor intrusion and protraction, which alternates with partial incisor retraction [].
The treatment planning with ClinCheck® Pro 6.0 aims to achieve posterior intrusion as well since attachments were introduced in 2011 in the Invisalign® G4 enhancements []. Some studies used this temporal inclusion criterion for this very reason—the adoption of algorithms for molar intrusion [].

4.1.3. Refinements and Treatment Adjustments

Refinements involve a new set of aligners for final open-bite correction and esthetic improvement. Aligner refinements are accompanied by optimized attachments and elastics. About 70%−80% of patients treated with Invisalign® necessitate periodic refinements []. Out of a total number of 45 patients, no refinements were needed only in 3 patients []. Reasons for refinement in open-bite treatment may occur when attachments impact the accuracy of tooth movements. Even if vertical movements were found to differ significantly than anticipated, only the intrusions of incisors were the most inaccurate movements, with incisor extrusion being accurate in a retrospective study on refinement requirements that also included three anterior open-bite cases [].

4.1.4. Retention Protocol

Retention protocols for open-bite treatment with CAs are those used in fixed appliances [,]. Vacuum-formed retainers are usually recommended, as they have a bite-deepening effect like that of aligners, and their occlusal coverage maintains molar vertical position. Hawley-style, Essix and bonded retainers are also used [,]. Optimal open-bite retention is achieved when retainers exert higher occlusal forces on the posterior teeth by applying additional layers of material []. Maxillary and mandibular aligners are also used for retention, their posterior intrusive force being like posterior bite blocks. Higher retention rates than in fixed appliances may be explained by aligners acting as retainers of the vertical dimension and not as openers of the mandibular plane [].

4.2. Influencing Factors and Treatment Outcomes

Reconciling patients’ esthetic and functional expectations with oral health, stability and the desired cephalometric values requires overcoming a series of issues related to the individual characteristics of patients, the orthodontist’s training and experience and aligner usage protocols and manufacturing limits.

4.2.1. Patient-Related Factors

Aligner treatment particularly relies on patient compliance. As is the case with removable appliances, for aligners to be worn continuously, a patient’s involvement is very important []. This is especially true when the treatment period reaches as high as 26 months, requiring the replacement of 125 aligners [], or even 34 months or 3 years [,], in situations in which refinements are needed. Reports of abandonment are scarce due to the inclusion criteria related to non-growing patients, finalized orthodontic treatment or to the retrospective nature of studies, but they ranged from 2.63% to 38.5% [,]. This is why the sample size of studies assessing clear aligner efficiency is usually low. Compliance challenges usually involve patients who fail to use the elastics as recommended []. Compliance stimulators in the form of lingual attachments for upper- and lower-anterior teeth can improve open-bite treatment outcomes []. Missed appointments and prolonged aligner wear times were also cited as reasons for poor patient compliance [].
Patients tend to refuse the extraction of the first premolars or the surgically assisted palatal expansion [,], which is why extractions are usually absent in clear aligner patients. Crowding is managed with interproximal reduction and arch expansion [].
In patients with poor periodontal support caused by gingival recession, it is important to minimize periodontal tissue stress and forces on the adjacent teeth by reducing the range of tooth movement and by controlling root movement so that the roots do not extend beyond the margin of the alveolar crest []. However, predicting root movements with CAs can be challenging, as digital planning focuses on images of tooth crown movements []. Periodontal issues, such as gingival recession and dental migration, can be improved with CAs. CAs preserve periodontal health due to improved plaque control and hygiene, minimal soft-tissue injuries and limited impact on tooth mobility []. By adding high-frequency vibration (HFV) to clear aligner treatment, increased bone density with new bone formation labially to the lower incisors was achieved in one open-bite patient who used an HFV of 120 Hz for 5 min per day, as shown by cone-beam CT []. A patient with anterior open bite on second incisors and slight gingival recession received corticotomy-assisted treatment with CA. The piezocision corticotomy was performed distally and mesially to second incisors and canines to accelerate open-bite treatment and improve root movement. The extrusion and torque were optimized with an attachment added to the second incisors [].
Bruxism has little impact on clear-aligner open-bite treatment. Aligners could act similarly to night guards or soft bite plates used for bruxism treatment, but CAs strain jaws by increasing the activity of masticatory muscles, leading to temporary mild jaw tenderness [] and have no significant effect on sleep bruxism []. Clear aligner treatment itself triggers episodes of awake bruxism, as shown by the increased masticatory muscle activity []. Daytime teeth grinding associated with a soft-bite-plate use leads to mandibular rotation. However, no statistically significant mandibular autorotation was found in patients treated with Invisalign® for anterior open-bite malocclusion for a mean period of 20 months [].
In patients previously treated with fixed orthodontic appliances for amelogenesis im-perfecta, aligner use is recommended, as retreatment with braces is not advised []. So far, there are no reports using the lack of previous orthodontic treatment as an inclusion criterion. Previous treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances is usually a reason for a patient’s choice for CA, as a means of not repeating an unpleasant experience [], but it may also be the cause of poor compliance []. Previous orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances may also explain current abnormal occlusion, due to incomplete treatment [] or relapse [].
Regarding patients with esthetic demands, CAs may correct open bite in hyperdivergent facial types associated with a distal movement of upper molars of up to 2–3 mm, due to good control of the vertical dimension in upper molars and effective incisor torque for maxillary molar distalization []. Good control of molar extrusion is required in patients with hyperdivergent skeletal pattern and high mandibular plane angle (MP-SN > 38°) to prevent the backward rotation of the mandible []. Open bite associated with facial hyperdivergence is characterized by maxillary excess, with an excessive incisor extrusion to compensate for the existing skeletal deficit. Upper incisor extrusion is considered unstable [] and may cause further excessive gingival display, which is why the extrusion of incisors should not exceed 1–2 mm [,].
Table 6 has a concise summary of the clinical recommendations based on patient-related factors in clear aligner treatment.
Table 6. Clinical recommendations based on patient-related factors in clear aligner treatment.

4.2.2. Clinician-Related Factors

Aligners demand complex initial treatment planning, as subsequent corrections are impossible to make at each visit. Orthodontists should have good knowledge of the characteristics of aligners and attachments, tooth movement biomechanics and the limitations of each case. Shorter dental chair treatment means less inconvenience for the patient, but more effort for the dentist. The orthodontist prioritizes and selects tooth movements and attachments based on suggestions made by the planning software []. Aligner efficiency was evaluated in some cases only in experienced orthodontists with an annual minimum of one hundred Invisalign® treatments []. In a study on 232 orthodontists, including clear aligner providers, all practitioners were aged over 45 years, with more than 10 years’ experience []. Open-bite cases consecutively treated by the same Invisalign® provider were also of interest, possibly on account of the homogeneity of materials and methods [,,]. However, this could be a source of bias, as treatment outcomes may be strongly influenced by the orthodontist’s unique working style [].
Tongue posture reeducation through myofunctional therapy averts the risk of open-bite relapse [], which is a decrease in overbite higher than 0.3 mm than in the absence of tongue positioning issues []. Voluntary clenching of teeth and hard chewing gum may be used to improve the vertical impact on posterior teeth and to increase the strength of masticatory muscles, the occlusal contact area and the occlusal sagittal relationship, especially in hyperdivergent patients with anterior open bite []. Table 7 provides a concise summary of the clinical recommendations based on clinician-related factors in clear aligner treatment.
Table 7. Clinical recommendations based on clinician-related factors in clear aligner treatment.

4.2.3. Technology-Related Factors

The tooth movements that are the most difficult to achieve with aligners should be analyzed considering attachment use [], with mini-screws and mini-implants [], and differences among types of teeth and between maxillary and mandibular positioning. There is also a tendency toward upward tooth movement caused by the additional forces created by changes in the fixation system of aligner attachments due to the tipping of teeth. Moreover, aligner thickness must reconcile comfort with increased force requirements []. Even if various brands are also targeting open-bite treatment (AirNivol, ALL IN, Dental Stealth, Effect Aligners, F22, Orthocaps, Smart Evolution, Smile Clear or Smiletech []), Invisalign® (Align Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) was the most frequently used aligner. Only one case report has used the Nuvola® OP System, which combines aligners with a myofunctional elastodontic device [].
Considering that Invisalign® CAs provide ongoing improvements to the SmartTrack material for improved fit of the trays, attachments and software quality [], regularly updated reviews on their performance are required.
Attachment use has considerably improved the anterior extrusion, even if this was considered in a 2015 review of aligner orthodontic efficiency as the least accurate tooth movement, with only 18% accuracy of extrusion in the upper central incisors and 25% in the lower ones []. Before the 2011 improvements, reviews have already noted the difficulties of drawing conclusions given that CAs evolve continuously [].

4.3. Outcome Measures and Comparative Effectiveness

Comparative studies have shown that the treatment success rate was similar in clear aligner and fixed-appliance patients [,], but the digital planning programmed tooth movement is overestimated in anterior open-bite patients [,].
The use of CAs leads to anterior extrusion in the absence of auxiliary vertical anchorage in the posterior teeth. A significant incisor extrusion of 1.5 mm on average achieved in patients with an average initial open bite of −1.1 mm suggests that open-bite closure may be due almost entirely to the anterior extrusion, with minimal changes in the vertical molar movement and in the mandibular plane angle [,]. Several studies reported a statistically significant intrusion in mandibular molars and only a minor intrusion in the maxillary molars [,] but a statistically significant intrusion in both maxillary and mandibular molars [] or a statistically significant intrusion in the maxillary molars and a non-statistically significant intrusion in the mandibular molars [] were also found. When the incisors are significantly retracted, the anterior open-bite closure may be attributed to the relative extrusion of incisors through retroclination instead of absolute incisor extrusion [,]. Interproximal reduction and arch expansion can be used to manage crowding and to retrocline the anterior teeth [].
CAs have the advantage of lacking the extrusive effect on molars seen with fixed orthodontic appliances that might aggravate the anterior open bite []. Dental movements triggered by the occlusal forces of CAs covering the masticatory surfaces of teeth do not impair the stability of anterior overbite as the counterclockwise mandibular rotation achieved by brackets does []. Moreover, aligner molar intrusion is achieved simultaneously with anterior extrusion without requiring any transpalatal or facial arches, as the thickness of aligner thermoplastic exerts enough intrusion on posterior teeth [,]. The teeth not intended for movement stay anchored in place [].
The downside of aligner open-bite treatment is the risk of posterior open bite [], insufficient tooth movement, with lower extrusion and higher intrusion [], caused by weak orthodontic forces, inadequate fastening, lack of specific force-bearing points and the opposing force of dental crowns. The extrusion accuracy provided by CAs amounts to considerably less than 50%, with reports of just 29.6% [] and 30% [], the lower canine being the most difficult to move []. Even in cases where, in fact, an intrusion was planned, only 26% of the predicted intrusion for lower incisors and 51% for canines was achieved [].
However, data published in 2009 [], 2015 [], and 2018 [], respectively, are increasingly challenged by more recent Invisalign® improvements. A review of various tooth movements generated by aligners alone that was published in 2017 has shown that the anterior extrusion was predictable up to 2.5 mm, moderate within the range of 2.5–3 mm and difficult when exceeding 3 mm, whereas the posterior intrusion was predictable up to 0.5 mm, moderate between 0.5 and 1 mm and difficult above 1 mm []. The extrusion of maxillary incisors remains problematic, but it can be improved by using attachments, by phasing treatment and by diversifying the ways in which forces are exerted to alternate distalization periods with extrusion intervals and to achieve supplemental movements such as retraction or retroclination [].
Post-treatment follow-up by superimposition of lateral cephalograms should indicate the counterclockwise rotation of the mandibular body []. The risk of bias during superimposition assessment in adult patients treated for anterior open bite performed by graduate students and orthodontic practitioners showed no significant superimposition bias, but the raters had a slight tendency to report no change or a closure in the mandibular plane angle when they were told that the treatment was performed with CAs [].

4.4. Recommendations for Improved Aligner Use

CA efficiency in open-bite correction may be improved by creating small interdental spaces prior to treatment. Moderate overcorrection can be used to manage the unpredictable rotations of upper and lower canines [].
CA treatment can be associated with fixed appliances []. A hybrid approach was successfully performed in a pediatric patient with mixed dentition and anterior open bite, when CAs were used simultaneously with fixed partial lingual appliances after orthopedic facemask therapy []. CAs can also be used in open-bite malocclusions as a second-phase treatment in interventions initiated with a Carriere Distalizer correction appliance [].
Performing a twice-weekly aligner change may help open-bite closure by increasing the time available for the prescribed vertical movements, with 0.49 mm more bite closure on average []. The use of optimized extrusion attachments on incisors may compensate for this treatment prolongation by shortening treatment duration [].
The bite closure overestimation provided by the digital planning software can be managed by increasing the prescribed tooth movements and by using reinforced vertical anchorage in posterior teeth [].
Virtual articulators can be used to create and improve a functional occlusion, leading to higher accuracy of clear-aligner open-bite treatment planning [].

4.5. Study Limitation

The present review has several limitations. Primarily, it focused on studies involving Invisalign® (Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA) and its associated ClinCheck® Pro 6.0 software. However, there are numerous other clear aligner systems in clinical use, including ClearCorrect® (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) with ClearPilot 10.0 software; Reveal® (Henry Schein, Melville, NY, USA); SureSmile® (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA), with Open Software and Digital Lab; Clarity Aligner Flex and Force® (3M ESPE, Maplewood, MN, USA); and Spark® (Ormco Corp, Envista, Brea, CA, USA), with Approver R15.6 software, among others []. As such, the brand-specific focus may limit the generalizability of our findings, particularly given the potential differences in aligner materials, treatment mechanics and digital workflow algorithms. Future research comparing the efficacy of different clear aligner systems is warranted to enhance the external validity of conclusions regarding anterior open-bite correction.
Most included studies were observational retrospective studies and case reports/series, which inherently present risks of selection bias, limited control of confounding variables and reduced generalizability. Additionally, studies were often conducted in individual or private clinical settings, possibly reflecting treatment protocols tailored to specific patient populations or practitioner preferences.
Importantly, the lack of long-term follow-up data across most studies restricts conclusions regarding the stability of anterior open-bite correction with clear aligners. Given the high relapse risk associated with this malocclusion, future studies should prioritize extended follow-up periods to evaluate treatment durability.
Although gray literature sources such as OpenGrey and Google Scholar were searched, they yielded no additional eligible studies. This may indicate a limited body of unpublished or non-indexed research on this topic, thereby introducing a risk of publication bias, as studies with negative or inconclusive outcomes may remain unreported.
Furthermore, while anterior open-bite treatment is relevant across age groups, the included studies predominantly evaluated adult populations. Differences in skeletal maturity, growth potential, compliance and treatment response between adults and younger patients may influence outcomes. Therefore, future research should consider comparative studies across age groups to improve understanding of age-related variability in clear aligner efficacy.
Lastly, to advance clinical applicability, future multicenter prospective trials, including comparisons among various aligner systems, are needed. These should also assess the predictability of digital treatment planning simulations and the long-term stability of results to establish evidence-based recommendations for clear aligner use in anterior open-bite management.

5. Conclusions

This scoping review explores the current evidence on the use of clear aligners, particularly Invisalign®, in the management of anterior open bite in adults. The available literature suggests that clear aligners may offer certain advantages, including improved esthetics, better periodontal outcomes and the benefits of digital treatment planning. However, their effectiveness in complex malocclusions appears limited, often necessitating the use of adjunctive approaches such as mini-screws and elastics to improve treatment predictability. The success of aligner therapy appears closely linked to patient compliance and the accuracy of digital simulations, which may not always reflect actual clinical outcomes. While other systems such as Spark®, ClearCorrect® and SureSmile® are emerging, limited peer-reviewed data are currently available on their efficacy in treating anterior open bite. This represents both a limitation of the current review and an important avenue for future research. Given the predominance of observational and retrospective studies in the existing evidence base, further high-quality, comparative research—particularly randomized controlled trials and long-term outcome studies—is warranted to better define the role of clear aligners in anterior open-bite correction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.D.O., I.N.Z., E.R.C. and C.R.; methodology, N.D.O.; software, C.R.; validation, I.N.Z.; formal analysis, E.R.C.; investigation, N.K.; resources, E.R.C. and L.N.; data curation, E.R.C., N.K., C.R. and N.D.O.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.C., N.K., N.D.O. and C.R.; writing—review and editing, I.N.Z.; visualization, L.N.; supervision, C.R.; project administration, I.N.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Torkan, S.; Firth, F.; Fleming, P.S.; Kravitz, N.D.; Farella, M.; Huang, G.J. Retention: Taking a more active role. Br. Dent. J. 2021, 230, 731–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rossini, G.; Parrini, S.; Castroflorio, T.; Deregibus, A.; Debernardi, C.L. Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85, 881–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Greenlee, G.M.; Huang, G.J.; Chen, S.S.; Chen, J.; Koepsell, T.; Hujoel, P. Stability of treatment for anterior open-bite malocclusion: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2011, 139, 154–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. 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, 23, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moya, S.P.; Zafra, J.L. Vertical problems. In Aligner Techniques in Orthodontics; Moya, S.P., Zafra, J.L., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 355–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Garnett, B.S.; Mahood, K.; Nguyen, M.; Al-Katheeb, A.; Liu, S.; Boyd, R.; Oh, H. Cephalometric comparison of adult anterior open bite treatment using clear aligners and fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2019, 89, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moshiri, S.; Araújo, E.A.; McCray, J.F.; Thiesen, G.; Kim, K.B. Cephalometric evaluation of adult anterior open bite non-extraction treatment with Invisalign®. Dent. Press. J. Orthod. 2017, 22, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harris, K.; Ojima, K.; Dan, C.; Upadhyay, M.; Alshehri, A.; Kuo, C.L.; Mu, J.; Uribe, F.; Nanda, R. Evaluation of open bite closure using clear aligners: A retrospective study. Prog. Orthod. 2020, 21, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blundell, H.L.; Weir, T.; Byrne, G. Predictability of anterior open bite treatment with Invisalign®. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2023, 164, 674–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Suh, H.; Garnett, B.S.; Mahood, K.; Boyd, R.L.; Oh, H. Short-term stability of anterior open bite treatment with clear aligners in adults. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2023, 164, 774–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pokorna, M.; Marek, I.; Kučera, J.; Tycová, H.; Tvardek, J. Cephalometric changes following clear aligner treatment in patients with anterior open bite. J. Aligner Orthod. 2022, 6, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rask, H.; English, J.D.; Colville, C.; Kasper, F.K.; Gallerano, R.; Jacob, H.B. Cephalometric evaluation of changes in vertical dimension and molar position in adult non-extraction treatment with clear aligners and traditional fixed appliances. Dent. Press. J. Orthod. 2021, 26, e2119360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kau, C.H.; Feinberg, K.B.; Christou, T. Effectiveness of clear aligners in treating patients with anterior open bite: A retrospective analysis. J. Clin. Orthod. 2017, 51, 454–460. [Google Scholar]
  15. Todoki, L.S.; Finkleman, S.A.; Funkhouser, E.; Greenlee, G.M.; Choi, K.W.; Ko, H.C.; Wang, H.F.; Shapiro, P.A.; Khosravi, R.; Baltuck, C.; et al. The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Treatment success. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2020, 158, e137–e150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pinho, T.; Santos, M. Skeletal open bite treated with clear aligners and miniscrews. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 159, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Waxler, R. Correcting skeletal open bite with clear aligners and miniscrews. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 160, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Agarwal, Y.; Goyal, M.; Kumar, M.; Kaur, A. Skeletal open bite treated with clear aligners and miniscrews. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 160, 166–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vadera, K.J.; Jagtap, S.B.; Shah, Y.A.; Deshmukh, S.V. Nonsurgical management of skeletal Class III malocclusion and dentoalveolar open bite with clear aligners. AJO-DO Clin. Companion 2023, 3, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Giancotti, A.; Garino, F.; Mampieri, G. Use of clear aligners in open bite cases: An unexpected treatment option. J. Orthod. 2017, 44, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Karalikkattil, T.L.; Batra, N.; Vivek, C.R.; Reddy, V.; Manimegalan, P.; Tom, A. Effectiveness of Invisalign Treatment on Open Bite Correction. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2024, 16, S850–S852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Steele, B.P.; Pandis, N.; Darendeliler, M.A.; Papadopoulou, A.K. A comparative assessment of the dentoskeletal effects of clear aligners vs miniplate-supported posterior intrusion with fixed appliances in adult patients with anterior open bite. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2022, 162, 214–228.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Burashed, H. The efficacy of anterior open bite closure when using Invisalign®’s optimized extrusion versus conventional attachments. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2023, 12, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Khosravi, R.; Cohanim, B.; Hujoel, P.; Daher, S.; Neal, M.; Liu, W.; Huang, G. Management of overbite with the Invisalign appliance. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2017, 151, 691–699.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chamberland, S.; Nataf, N. Noninvasive conservative management of anterior open bite treated with TADs versus clear aligner therapy. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2024, 28, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sangalli, L. Invisalign System as a Treatment of a Skeletal Open Bite. A Case Report with a 5-Year Follow-up. J. Dent. Rep. 2021, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El-Bialy, T. The Use of High Frequency Vibration and Clear Aligners in Management of an Adult Patient with Class III Skeletal Malocclusion with Open Bite and Severe Bimaxillary Protrusion: Case Report. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Guarneri, M.P.; Oliverio, T.; Silvestre, I.; Lombardo, L.; Siciliani, G. Open bite treatment using clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2013, 83, 913–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schupp, W.; Haubrich, J.; Neumann, I. Treatment of anterior open bite with the Invisalign system. J. Clin. Orthod. 2010, 44, 501–507. [Google Scholar]
  30. Gudhimella, S.; Gandhi, V.; Schiro, N.L.; Janakiraman, N. Management of Anterior Open Bite and Skeletal Class II Hyperdivergent Patient with Clear Aligner Therapy. Turk. J. Orthod. 2022, 35, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Greco, M.; Rossini, G.; Rombolà, A. Simplifying the approach of open bite treatment with aligners and selective micro-osteoperforations: An adult case report. Int. Orthod. 2021, 19, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sabouni, W.; Venugopal, A.; Adel, S.M.; Vaid, N. Correction of anterior open bite of varying severity using clear aligner therapy—A case series. Clin. Case Rep. 2022, 10, e6277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tepedino, M.; Iancu Potrubacz, M.; Esposito, R.; Staderini, E.; Ciavarella, D. Open Bite Treatment with Combined Aligners and Myofunctional Appliances: A Case Report. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodriguez, H.L. Nonextraction treatment of a Class II open bite in an adult patient. J. Clin. Orthod. 2012, 46, 367–371. [Google Scholar]
  35. Haubrich, J.; Schupp, W. Open bite treatment with aligner orthodontics. J. Aligner Orthod. 2023, 7, 195–216. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wen, Y.; Niu, Q.; Wang, A.; Yang, H.; Wang, H.; Jin, Z. Clear aligner treatment for an adult with severe anterior open bite malocclusion. AJO-DO Clin. Companion 2022, 2, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ojima, K.; Dan, C.; Watanabe, H.; Kumagai, Y.; Nanda, R. The biomechanics of aligner orthodontics in open-bite cases. J. Clin. Orthod. 2019, 53, 699–712. [Google Scholar]
  38. Machado, R.M. Space closure using aligners. Dent. Press. J. Orthod. 2020, 25, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kravitz, N.D.; Kusnoto, B.; BeGole, E.; Obrez, A.; Agran, B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign®. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 135, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lagravère, M.O.; Flores-Mir, C. The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: A systematic review. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2005, 136, 1724–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mampieri, G.; Condò, R.; Di Caccamo, G.; Pirelli, P.; Giancotti, A. Clear Aligner Treatments in Orthoperio Patients. Case Rep. Dent. 2022, 2022, 8932770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martina, S.; Martini, M.; Bordegoni, M.; Razionale, A.V. Predictability of root movements using virtual root setup in a patient with periodontal disease treated with clear aligners. Open Dent. J. 2021, 15, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boyd, R.L. Periodontal and restorative considerations with clear aligner treatment to establish a more favorable restorative environment. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2009, 30, 280–288. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Caruso, S.; Darvizeh, A.; Zema, S.; Gatto, R.; Nota, A. Management of a Facilitated Aesthetic Orthodontic Treatment with Clear Aligners and Minimally Invasive Corticotomy. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Michelotti, A.; Rongo, R.; D’Antò, V.; Bucci, R. Occlusion, orthodontics, and temporomandibular disorders: Cutting edge of the current evidence. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2020, 9, S15–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Castroflorio, T.; Bargellini, A.; Lucchese, A.; Manuelli, M.; Casasco, F.; Cugliari, G.; Cioffi, I.; Deregibus, A. Effects of clear aligners on sleep bruxism: Randomized controlled trial. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2018, 32, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lou, T.; Tran, J.; Castroflorio, T.; Tassi, A.; Cioffi, I. Evaluation of masticatory muscle response to clear aligner therapy using ambulatory electromyographic recording. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2021, 159, e25–e33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Timm, L.H.; Farrag, G.; Baxmann, M.; Schwendicke, F. Factors influencing patient compliance during clear aligner therapy: A retrospective cohort study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Boyd, R.L.; Waskalic, V. Three-dimensional diagnosis and orthodontic treatment of complex malocclusions with the Invisalign appliance. Semin. Orthod. 2001, 7, 274–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Simon, M.; Keilig, L.; Schwarze, J.; Jung, B.A.; Bourauel, C. Treatment outcome and efficacy of an aligner technique—Regarding incisor torque, premolar derotation and molar distalization. BMC Oral. Health 2014, 14, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barone, S.; Paoli, A.; Razionale, A.V.; Savignano, R. Computational design and engineering of polymeric orthodontic aligners. Int. J. Numer. Methods Biomed. Eng. 2017, 33, e2839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Putrino, A.; Barbato, E.; Galluccio, G. Clear aligners: Between evolution and efficiency—A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. 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. Dentofac. Orthop. 2018, 154, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Papadimitriou, A.; Mousoulea, S.; Gkantidis, N.; Kloukos, D. Clinical effectiveness of Invisalign® orthodontic treatment: A systematic review. Prog. Orthod. 2018, 19, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Choi, K.W.; Ko, H.C.; Todoki, L.S.; Finkleman, S.A.; Khosravi, R.; Wang, H.F.; Funkhouser, E.; Baltuck, C.; Raj, V.; Allareddy, V.; et al. The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network adult anterior open bite study: A description of the practitioners and patients. Angle Orthod. 2018, 88, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Naveed, N.; Kishorekumar, S. Efficacy of Clear Aligners in Correcting Anterior Open Bite-A Systematic Review. Indian J. Med. Forensic Med. Toxicol. 2020, 14, 1436–1443. [Google Scholar]
  57. Weir, T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust. Dent. J. 2017, 62, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ovard, S.; Leroux, B.; Greenlee, G.; Huang, G. Bias in the superimposition of lateral cephalograms in adult patients with anterior open bite. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2023, 163, 222–232.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hartshorne, J.; Wertheimer, M.B. Emerging insights and new developments in clear aligner therapy: A review of the literature. AJO-DO Clin. Companion 2022, 2, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lombardo, L.; Palone, M.; Carlucci, A.; Siciliani, G. Clear aligner hybrid approach: A case report. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2020, 9, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Interpretable Machine Learning for Serum-Based Metabolomics in Breast Cancer Diagnostics: Insights from Multi-Objective Feature Selection-Driven LightGBM-SHAP Models
Previous
A Comparative Analysis of Feeding Practices and Oral Immunity in Infants
Next