Posterior open bite after clear aligner therapy: a systematic review and proposed mechanism-aware clinical classification
This systematic review synthesizes limited evidence on posterior open bite following clear aligner therapy to propose a mechanism-aware, four-grade millimetric classification system that standardizes clinical reporting and research stratification while distinguishing severity magnitude from underlying etiology.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine a set of teeth as a complex puzzle where the upper and lower rows are designed to fit together perfectly, like the teeth of two gears meshing. When a dentist uses clear plastic trays to straighten these teeth, the goal is to guide them into a new, ideal position. However, sometimes, after the trays are removed, the back teeth do not touch as they should. Instead of meeting in the middle, a small gap remains between the upper and lower molars on one or both sides. This condition is known as a posterior open bite. While dentists have long noticed this happening, they have struggled to agree on how often it occurs, exactly how big the gap is, or what causes it. Is it the plastic trays themselves acting like a wedge that pushes the teeth apart? Or is it a side effect of how the front teeth were moved? Without a clear way to measure and describe these gaps, it has been difficult to know if a patient needs further treatment or if the teeth will settle back into place on their own.
A new systematic review, led by researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of Genoa, set out to bring order to this confusion. The team scoured medical databases for every available study that looked at clear aligner therapy and the resulting gaps in the back teeth. They gathered data from twenty-three records, ranging from large groups of patients to smaller case studies, to piece together a clearer picture of the phenomenon. Their work did not just summarize what was known; it also highlighted what remained unknown and proposed a new, practical way for dentists to talk about and manage these gaps.
The researchers found that while clear aligner therapy is effective for many, the back teeth sometimes fail to make full contact after treatment. In one specific study comparing clear aligners to traditional metal braces, about thirty-nine percent of the patients treated with clear trays had a visible gap in their back teeth when the appliances were removed. This was slightly higher than the thirty-two percent seen in patients with metal braces, but the difference was not large enough to say one method is definitively worse than the other. Crucially, the review pointed out that we cannot yet say exactly how many people develop this gap because of the treatment, because some patients already had a slight gap before they even started. The data simply does not allow for a precise calculation of new cases appearing during treatment.
To make sense of the varying sizes of these gaps, the authors proposed a new four-level classification system based on the actual width of the space between the teeth, measured in millimeters. They suggest calling a gap smaller than half a millimeter "sub-clinical," meaning it is so tiny it might not matter. A gap between half a millimeter and one and a half millimeters is considered "mild." Gaps between one and a half and three millimeters are "moderate," and anything larger than three millimeters is "severe." This system is designed to be a common language for dentists and researchers. It separates the size of the gap from the cause of the gap. A dentist can now say, "This patient has a moderate gap," without immediately assuming it was caused by a specific error in the treatment plan. This distinction is vital because the size of the gap does not automatically reveal why it happened.
The review also examined the theories behind why these gaps appear. One popular idea is the "bite-block" effect, suggesting that the plastic trays themselves, worn over the teeth for long periods, might push the back teeth slightly inward, preventing them from touching. The researchers found evidence that the back teeth can indeed move slightly inward, often by less than one millimeter, but they could not prove that the plastic tray was the sole cause. Other possibilities include the front teeth not moving exactly as planned, creating a premature contact that forces the jaw to shift and the back teeth apart, or the teeth simply not having enough time to settle into their final position once the trays are gone. The review concluded that no single cause explains every case; instead, it is likely a mix of small vertical changes, front-to-back positioning issues, and sideways tipping of the teeth.
Perhaps the most significant finding of the review is what it could not determine. The researchers could not find enough high-quality evidence to say that one brand of clear aligner is safer than another regarding this specific problem. While the materials and designs of different trays vary, no study has directly compared them side-by-side to see which one results in fewer gaps. Furthermore, the review found no clear data on how long these gaps last or how often they disappear on their own once the trays are removed. Some evidence suggests that teeth might settle and close small gaps over time, but this has not been proven for the specific gaps caused by clear aligners.
The authors emphasize that while the gaps are real and measurable, the path forward requires more careful observation. They recommend that dentists measure the gap precisely and record its size and location rather than just noting that a problem exists. If the gap is small, it might be watched to see if it closes naturally. If it is larger, the dentist must investigate the cause—checking if the front teeth are hitting too early or if the jaw has shifted—before deciding on a fix. This approach moves away from guessing and toward a structured evaluation. The review serves as a foundation for future studies, urging researchers to track patients over time with standardized measurements to finally understand how often these gaps happen, why they happen, and how best to fix them. Until then, the new classification offers a clear, shared way to describe the problem, ensuring that when a dentist sees a gap, they can communicate its severity and nature with precision.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.