Introduction and Objectives: Treatment of malocclusion with clear aligners (CAs) and
fixed appliances (FAs) differs in biological, physiological, and biomechanical
aspects. As a result of an increasing demand for aesthetic orthodontic treatment and
patient comfort, this work highlights cases when CA is less likely to cause
complications than FA treatment. Results: Scientific literature states that CAs do not
cause enamel demineralization, have lower risks of WSL development, and
maintain periodontal health better than FAs. CAs protect teeth from EARR by
applying controlled intermittent force system. Besides, there is a decreased pain
experience, decreased use of analgesics, and higher OHRQoL in CAs treatment. On
the other hand, CAs cannot manage complex tooth movements, including tooth
rotation, bodily movement, and bite correction. This leads to posterior open bite
problem. Moreover, the maintenance of occlusal contacts, attachment placement,
and patient compliance continue to be problematic. Conclusions: CAs present a
reliable, predictable, and safe tool for treating patients who are more susceptible to
periodontal disease and root resorption. Although advances in CAD/CAM
technology and polymer development are promising, further clinical studies should
be performed before declaring CAs as a standard treatment for any malocclusion.
Keywords: clear aligners; fixed appliances; orthodontic complications; root
resorption; periodontal health; white spot lesions
