Clear aligner therapy among orthodontists in Turkey: practice patterns and comparison with previously reported Iranian findings
Frontiers in Dental Medicine, cilt.7, 2026 (ESCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 7
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.3389/fdmed.2026.1896311
- Dergi Adı: Frontiers in Dental Medicine
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals
- Anahtar Kelimeler: clear aligner therapy, Iran, orthodontic practice, survey, Turkey
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Objective – The aim of this paper is to investigate clear aligner therapy (CAT) practice patterns among Turkish orthodontists and compare them with Iranian specialist orthodontists. Methods – A web-based cross-sectional survey of Turkish specialist orthodontists assessed CAT use, adjuncts, training, case selection by malocclusion and age, monitoring and retention protocols, and perceived advantages/disadvantages. Findings were compared with a previously published survey of 142 Iranian orthodontists. Results – A total of 178 Turkish orthodontists participated (7.5% response rate; 71 males, 107 females). Most were aged 30–39 years (53.9%), had 11–20 years of experience (42.1%), and worked in private practice (62.9%). CAT use was reported by 96.1% of Turkish orthodontists versus 69.0% of Iranian orthodontists. More Turkish orthodontists initiated >50 new CAT cases annually (33.1% vs. 7.7%), while fewer reported <10 cases/year (18.0% vs. 35.9%). CAT use was significantly higher in Turkey across all age groups (P < 0.001). Preferences were similar for mild crowding, spacing, and anterior cross-bite. Turkish orthodontists more frequently used CAT for complex cases, including mild/moderate open bite and severe crowding (P < 0.05). CAT was preferred more for limited extraction and space-opening cases than orthognathic surgery cases. Iranian orthodontists more commonly used local manufacturers (49.3% vs. 15.7%) and in-office aligner production (19% vs. 9%). Perceptions regarding CAT advantages and limitations were largely similar between groups. Conclusion – Among respondents, CAT was more widely integrated into orthodontic practice in Turkey, with broader self-reported clinical indications and more positive clinician perceptions than in Iran. Iranian orthodontists relied more on locally manufactured and in-office aligners.