Explore the sections of this guide ↓
What Is Anchorage in Clear Aligner Treatment?
Orthodontic anchorage is the resistance used to limit unwanted tooth movement while other teeth are being moved intentionally. In this context, aligner anchorage is not a secondary detail: it is part of the force system that determines whether a digital treatment plan can be achieved clinically.
When an aligner is designed to move a tooth, it creates contact forces on the target tooth and reacts against other tooth surfaces. Those reaction forces may be distributed across neighboring teeth, other parts of the arch, or—through additional appliances—structures outside that arch. The supporting units do not necessarily remain perfectly stationary.
Anchorage planning therefore answers two connected questions: Which teeth should move? and which teeth or structures must resist movement while the correction is performed?
In modern aligner orthodontics, support may come from teeth in the same arch, the opposing dental arch, bone-supported temporary anchorage devices, or selected auxiliary appliances. Different situations require different combinations; no method is ideal for every patient.
The essential distinction: the purpose of anchorage is to manage undesired reciprocal movement, not simply to keep an aligner seated on the teeth. The appliance can fit tightly and still produce an unfavorable distribution of forces.
Why Do Reciprocal Forces Matter?
Every orthodontic force belongs to a mechanical system. When one component applies a force, the supporting structures experience a corresponding reaction. Orthodontists must consider both the intended movement and those reactions, particularly where they can influence other teeth or the occlusion.
Action and reaction during aligner movement
Imagine planning to move an upper molar backward. The aligner must apply a distal force to the molar, but the opposing reaction does not disappear. Depending on contact geometry and staging, reaction loads can be transferred to anterior or adjacent teeth. If that support is insufficient, the result may include unwanted tipping, incisor proclination, or loss of available space.
Likewise, retracting anterior teeth after premolar extractions creates anchorage demands in the posterior segment. If the molars drift forward beyond the treatment plan, less space remains for the desired anterior correction.
Selected teeth receive the force system intended to change their position.
Other teeth or an appliance receive reciprocal forces as part of the same system.
The treatment design seeks to preserve support and verify the resulting movements.
Conceptual overview; the exact vectors, moments and tissue response depend on the individual force system.
Anchorage is three-dimensional
Unwanted movement does not occur only forward or backward. Reciprocal forces may affect torque, root inclination, rotation, intrusion, extrusion or the relationship between dental arches. Consequently, an anchorage design that controls one direction may still permit an unwanted effect in another plane.
Force magnitude, line of action, moment-to-force relationships, aligner deformation and periodontal support all influence the actual response. These topics are closely connected with the broader principles of aligner biomechanics.
The Main Types of Orthodontic Anchorage
The available anchorage strategies can be classified by where their supporting resistance comes from. Some rely on teeth; others incorporate skeletal or extraoral structures. A clinician may combine more than one source in the same treatment.
1. Intra-arch dental anchorage
Teeth within the same dental arch serve as the supporting unit for the teeth being moved. The resistance depends on the number and distribution of supporting teeth, the surrounding periodontal tissues, their root morphology, and how the force is transmitted through the appliance.
A clear aligner engages many teeth simultaneously, which can distribute loads across an arch. This does not mean the aligner automatically creates adequate anchorage for every movement. Some supporting teeth may tip or translate if the load exceeds the stability available in that configuration.
2. Interarch anchorage
Interarch anchorage draws additional support from the relationship between upper and lower dental arches. Intermaxillary elastics are one familiar example: they can help coordinate sagittal corrections, but they also exert reciprocal forces on the opposing arch.
Any appliance that transmits forces between arches must be evaluated as a two-arch system. The supporting dental arch is not inherently an immovable reference, and unwanted effects can appear in either arch.
3. Skeletal anchorage
Skeletal anchorage relies on a bone-supported device, commonly a temporary anchorage device (TAD or orthodontic miniscrew). It can reduce dependence on dental anchorage and enable useful lines of force, including those needed for selected intrusion, distalization and retraction mechanics.
Because skeletal anchorage requires a separate clinical intervention and may involve loosening, irritation or other complications, it should be selected only where justified by the diagnosis and expected benefit.
4. Extraoral and other auxiliary sources
Conventional orthodontics has also used extraoral traction and various functional or fixed appliances to modify force systems. Their role in a contemporary aligner plan depends on the patient's age, malocclusion, required mechanics and acceptance of the device.
| Anchorage strategy | Typical supporting structure | Main opportunity | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-arch dental | Other teeth in the same arch | Distributes reaction forces within a planned dental unit | Supporting teeth may still move |
| Interarch dental | Opposing dental arch | Coordinates forces across both arches | Reciprocal movements can occur in both arches |
| Skeletal / TADs | Bone-supported mini-implant or miniscrew | Additional force application point less dependent on teeth | Procedure, stability and site-specific risks |
| Extraoral / auxiliary | External or specialized appliance systems | Alternative force direction or support in selected cases | Wear, comfort and case-specific suitability |
Anchorage vs Retention vs Stabilization
These three concepts are related, but they describe different clinical functions. Confusing them can lead to unrealistic expectations about what an appliance is able to achieve.
- Aligner retention
- How effectively an aligner remains engaged with the teeth and resists displacement or lifting from tooth surfaces. Retention supports force delivery, but it is not the same as resisting unwanted tooth movement.
- Orthodontic anchorage
- The resistance available against undesirable movement caused by the planned orthodontic force system. Anchorage may be dental, interarch, skeletal or combined.
- Dental arch stabilization
- The use of a retainer, splint or other technique to limit change in a selected arch or group of teeth. Stabilization may contribute to an anchorage strategy but does not establish absolute immobility.
A retainer is ordinarily intended to preserve tooth position, not automatically to function as a validated anchorage device under every possible external load. If it is incorporated into active orthodontic mechanics, the clinician must consider its fit, stiffness, retention and the direction of forces transmitted to its supporting teeth.
Similarly, absolute anchorage is a useful clinical ideal, but no dental support should be described as perfectly stationary by assumption. Even skeletal anchorage devices must be monitored for stability and the intended biomechanical effect.
How Clear Aligner Design Influences Anchorage
A clear aligner does more than cover tooth crowns. Its shape determines which surfaces are contacted, how the appliance deforms when seated, and where the reaction forces can be distributed.
Contact surfaces and aligner fit
The line of action of a force depends on where the aligner presses against a tooth. Small changes in contact, tooth anatomy, trimming or aligner seating can change the balance between tipping and bodily movement. An aligner that has lost tracking may transmit a different force system from the one originally intended.
Material properties and deformation
Polymer stiffness, elasticity, stress relaxation and local thickness influence how forces are delivered. Under load, the aligner can flex or lift away from certain teeth, decreasing the effectiveness of the planned supporting unit.
Attachments and additional mechanical features
Bonded attachments, precision cuts, buttons or sectional auxiliaries may be used to modify force transfer when clinically indicated. Their suitability depends on the movement, force direction and the full treatment plan. Not every case requires the same auxiliary configuration.
Sequencing matters as much as appliance geometry
When multiple teeth move simultaneously, the available dental anchorage can be consumed or redistributed. Appropriately staged tooth movements may help preserve support, prepare space and reduce mechanical interference. However, staging alone cannot guarantee the movement of either the active or supporting teeth.
Published clinical studies demonstrate meaningful differences between planned and achieved movements, even when digital treatment design is performed by experienced operators. This supports the need for individualized planning and monitoring '+ref(2)+' '+ref(3)+'.
How Much Anchorage Does a Case Require?
The amount and direction of anchorage required depend on the intended correction and how much unintended movement of supporting teeth can be tolerated.
Minimum, moderate and maximum anchorage
In orthodontic planning, clinicians may refer to minimum, moderate or maximum anchorage requirements. These descriptions relate to the treatment goal rather than to a fixed appliance brand.
- Minimum anchorage: some movement of the supporting posterior teeth may be desirable or acceptable as part of the planned space closure.
- Moderate anchorage: both active and supporting segments may contribute to the intended space redistribution.
- Maximum anchorage: the clinician seeks to preserve the supporting unit as much as possible while obtaining the planned movement of the active teeth.
These categories are useful descriptions, not universal numerical thresholds. The important point is to decide in advance which movements are acceptable in the anchorage unit, then choose a force system accordingly.
Clinical planning question: if an upper incisor retracts by the planned amount but the upper molars also move mesially, has the intended space redistribution actually been achieved? Anchorage control must be judged against the overall treatment objectives.
Anchorage During Molar Distalization
Distalization involves moving posterior teeth toward the back of a dental arch. Clear aligners can be used for selected distalization protocols, but supporting teeth may experience reactive effects.
For example, a digital setup may show molars progressing distally while anterior teeth remain stationary. In the mouth, forces delivered by the aligner can create opposite reactions on the anchoring teeth and may contribute to undesired incisor proclination or tipping if the supporting system is insufficient.
Sequential distalization stages, anchorage preparation, careful aligner design and—when clinically indicated—interarch elastics or temporary anchorage devices may be considered to improve the overall force system.
The decision must also account for dental crowding, available posterior space, root positions, periodontal health, third molar status and the existing sagittal occlusal relationship.
Important: a molar's displayed distal displacement in a digital setup is not proof that the full movement or the intended anchorage preservation will be achieved. Three-dimensional progress assessment is valuable in these cases.
Anchorage During Extraction-Space Closure
Premolar extraction treatment highlights why anchorage is central to clear aligner biomechanics. The plan may call for anterior retraction, posterior protraction or a combination of the two. Each option has a different anchorage requirement.
The risk of unintended molar movement
During anterior retraction, reaction forces can pull posterior teeth toward the extraction space. If molars move forward more than intended, space available for incisor retraction is reduced.
In a study of 30 patients treated with aligners after maxillary first premolar extraction, Dai and colleagues compared achieved and predicted positions of first molars and central incisors. They identified discrepancies involving posterior anchorage and the planned anterior movement '+ref(2)+'.
The so-called roller-coaster effect
When an aligner flexes or loses favorable engagement across an extraction space, unwanted molar tipping and anterior vertical effects may occur. The Atlas of Aligner Treatment and Planning discusses this biomechanical problem and emphasizes careful attachment selection, staging and reinforced anchorage where needed '+ref(1)+'.
The appropriate response is not automatically the addition of a particular device. The clinician should identify the undesired force or moment and select a correction strategy consistent with the biological and restorative objectives.
Anchorage for Intrusion, Extrusion and Bite Control
Vertical tooth movement may be essential in the correction of deep bites, open bites and asymmetric occlusal relationships. Intrusion and extrusion require different force directions and can introduce specific anchorage reactions.
Anterior intrusion
Intruding incisors requires control of both vertical force delivery and unwanted changes in inclination. Depending on the design, the reaction to an intrusive force may be distributed to posterior teeth. Selective temporary skeletal anchorage can be considered for complex situations when additional control is needed.
Posterior intrusion
Posterior intrusion may help manage selected open-bite problems, but it is a demanding movement. The treatment should distinguish true tooth intrusion from changes in occlusal contacts, aligner thickness and mandibular rotation.
Extrusion and occlusal settling
Extruding teeth predictably with aligners can be challenging because force application depends on effective engagement and control of the supporting unit. As treatment approaches finishing, the clinician must assess posterior contacts and overall occlusal relationships rather than considering alignment alone.
For every vertical movement, the anchorage requirements must be considered across the entire system, not only at the tooth being moved.
Interarch Mechanics and Reciprocal Effects
Interarch mechanics transfer forces between upper and lower dental arches. They may be used to influence anteroposterior relationships and other selected corrections, but the forces act on both arches.
For instance, Class II elastics can provide a helpful direction of force for certain sagittal dental movements. At the same time, they may contribute to unwanted movements of the lower molars or upper incisors, depending on their anchorage points and mechanics.
Interarch force systems can also influence the vertical dimension, tooth inclination and occlusal plane. A plan focused only on one moving arch may therefore overlook important consequences in the other.
A more stable opposing arch can be clinically useful in a deliberately designed treatment sequence. But because it remains a dental structure, its actual response to transmitted forces must still be examined. Interarch support is not automatically equivalent to skeletal anchorage.
Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) with Aligners
A temporary anchorage device is a small bone-supported orthodontic anchor, commonly called a miniscrew. It can provide an additional point for applying forces without requiring the same degree of reactive movement in another dental segment.
Where TADs may help
Depending on anatomy and diagnosis, TADs may assist with selected molar distalization, incisor intrusion, posterior intrusion, en-masse retraction or asymmetric movements. They are often integrated with elastics, power chains or other carefully designed auxiliaries.
Direct and indirect skeletal anchorage
In direct anchorage, the orthodontic force is applied from the TAD to the active tooth or segment. In indirect anchorage, the TAD supports a dental anchorage unit that is then used to resist forces from the active movement.
What the evidence supports—and what it does not
A 2025 systematic review of aligners combined with TADs included 14 records in its qualitative synthesis and described promising applications for demanding movements. The authors also called for further research '+ref(4)+'.
A 2026 scoping review mapped 133 publications and reported that case reports and laboratory studies still accounted for most of the available evidence. Therefore, clinical advantages should be discussed in relation to each movement and evidence type, rather than assumed for all aligner patients '+ref(5)+'.
Miniscrews also introduce procedural considerations and potential complications. Their placement and monitoring require appropriate professional qualifications, anatomical assessment and informed consent.
Dental vs Interarch vs Skeletal Anchorage
Each strategy offers different opportunities for force control. The selection should be based on the direction and magnitude of desired tooth movement, biological constraints, existing occlusion and the patient's preferences.
| Consideration | Dental anchorage | Interarch anchorage | Skeletal anchorage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary support | Teeth within one arch | Opposing dental arch | Temporary bone-supported device |
| Reciprocal effects | Possible within the same arch | Possible in both arches | Less reliance on dental reaction, but not risk-free |
| Additional procedure | Usually no surgery | Depends on appliance protocol | Placement and removal procedure |
| Patient cooperation | Aligner wear generally important | Depends on wear and mechanics | TAD fixation independent of wear; aligner compliance still matters |
| Planning priority | Distribution of tooth-borne loads | Both arches and occlusion | Anatomy, insertion site, force vectors and stability |
This comparison is educational. No single anchorage source should be chosen solely because it appears mechanically stronger; the relevant question is whether it provides an appropriate force system for the patient's treatment objectives.
Digital Planning and Monitoring of Anchorage
Digital treatment planning makes it possible to describe intended movements precisely and coordinate appliance design, but it does not guarantee force delivery or the biological result.
Plan supporting teeth explicitly
A setup should identify the target movement and the teeth or structures expected to resist its reaction. Marking an anchorage tooth as stationary in software is not the same as demonstrating that it will remain stationary in the mouth.
Evaluate the whole occlusion
When one arch is being moved, the opposing arch still affects the available space, contacts and mechanical behavior of interarch auxiliaries. Initial and final relationships should be reviewed together.
Compare predicted and achieved positions
New intraoral scans, clinically relevant photographs and appropriate imaging can help assess whether the planned movements are progressing. Digital models may be superimposed using a defensible reference region; interpreting the results requires awareness of the limitations of the selected reference.
Digital archives and longitudinal comparisons—including solutions such as 3DDA—can support documentation and follow-up, but the evidence for a specific appliance or anchorage protocol must come from its own clinical evaluation.
- DiagnoseAssess malocclusion, periodontal support, anatomy, occlusal relationships and treatment alternatives.
- Define the anchorage objectiveSpecify which teeth should move and what movements of supporting teeth would be unacceptable.
- Design the mechanicsSelect the sequence, aligner contact, anchorage unit and necessary auxiliaries.
- Monitor both sides of the force systemEvaluate the active teeth, anchorage teeth, appliance fit and occlusal consequences.
- Adapt when indicatedModify staging, appliances or treatment objectives if the clinical response differs from the plan.
When Hybrid Aligner Treatment Adds Anchorage Options
Hybrid aligner treatment intentionally combines clear aligners with complementary orthodontic devices or mechanical systems. Additional anchorage is one reason to consider such a strategy.
Examples include aligners combined with a palatal TAD-supported appliance, sectional fixed mechanics, interarch auxiliaries or carefully staged treatment phases. These are not interchangeable solutions: a TAD supplies skeletal support, while a tooth-borne interarch appliance transfers forces through the opposing dentition.
The scientific literature supports the biomechanical rationale for using supplementary mechanics in selected complex cases, but results depend on the particular device, movement and protocol. A 2023 clinical overview by Kravitz and colleagues discusses the broader category of hybrid aligner treatment '+ref(7)+'.
For an introduction to the different combined approaches, explore our Hybrid Aligner Treatment pillar article.
Interarch Support in the Jaw By Jaw™ Concept
Jaw By Jaw™ Aligners, powered by SyncSplint®, is a specific sequential clear-aligner treatment concept organized around two coordinated stages.
One Moving Arch. One Anchoring Arch. Then Switch.
The concept separates active dental movement and stabilization so that one dental arch is aligned while the other is intended to provide additional reference and support within a planned interarch configuration.
Upper teeth move; lower arch is stabilized
Upper teeth progress through a planned aligner sequence. The lower arch is stabilized with a retainer and participates in the prescribed appliance system through an individually designed SyncSplint®. The objective is additional support during controlled upper-arch correction.
Lower teeth move; upper arch is stabilized
After reaching its planned position, the upper arch is stabilized with a retainer. The lower teeth then undergo the programmed aligner sequence, with the subsequent SyncSplint® configuration contributing to the second stage as planned.
The broader treatment objective is to coordinate tooth alignment, occlusal function and smile esthetics rather than treat the arches as unrelated structures. Learn more about the Jaw By Jaw™ concept.
Scientific distinction: this is a product-specific proposed interarch and sequential treatment strategy. A stabilized dental arch is not absolute anchorage and is not equivalent to a TAD. Evidence supporting conventional orthodontic anchorage principles does not by itself prove faster treatment, greater accuracy or improved long-term stability with Jaw By Jaw™ or SyncSplint®. Those outcomes require protocol-specific clinical studies.
Limitations and Clinical Considerations
Anchorage reinforcement should not become an end in itself. Additional orthodontic mechanics may add complexity, costs, appointments, soft-tissue irritation or requirements for patient cooperation.
For tooth-borne support, the clinician must consider periodontal health, tooth mobility, occlusal interference and potential unwanted changes in the supporting arch. For skeletal anchorage, placement-site assessment, device stability and possible complications are additional considerations.
Clear aligners also rely on appropriate fitting and wear. Introducing supplemental anchorage does not compensate automatically for poor aligner engagement, inadequate treatment monitoring or an unsuitable movement plan.
When evaluating a new device, clinicians should distinguish a credible mechanical rationale from demonstrated comparative clinical superiority. Both are valuable questions, but they require different evidence.
What Does the Scientific Evidence Show?
Several layers of evidence inform anchorage planning in clear aligner treatment:
- Established orthodontic biomechanics: reciprocal forces, moments and anchorage requirements apply regardless of whether appliances are fixed or removable.
- Clinical movement comparisons: studies of planned versus achieved aligner movements document that the intended anchorage unit may not remain fully stable, particularly in complex protocols '+ref(2)+' '+ref(3)+'.
- TAD-assisted aligner studies: systematic and scoping reviews suggest useful applications, while recognizing substantial variation in treatment protocols and the limited quality of much of the evidence '+ref(4)+' '+ref(5)+' '+ref(6)+'.
- Expert consensus: contemporary professional panels acknowledge movement-specific limits of aligner treatment and the need for appropriate adjunctive strategies '+ref(8)+'.
Additional anchorage can be biomechanically justified for selected orthodontic problems. However, no review of conventional aligner anchorage establishes that a new patient-specific appliance will necessarily shorten treatment or improve outcomes compared with alternative mechanics. Claims about a particular device must be evaluated separately.
Frequently Asked Questions About Aligner Anchorage
What is anchorage in orthodontic aligner treatment?
Anchorage is resistance to unwanted tooth movement during planned orthodontic correction. In clear aligner treatment, that resistance can come from other teeth, an opposing dental arch, skeletal anchorage devices, or a carefully planned combination.
Do clear aligners provide their own anchorage?
By engaging multiple teeth, an aligner can distribute forces through a dental arch and create a tooth-borne support system. That support is not absolute, and the reaction to tooth movement may still displace other teeth.
What is the difference between aligner retention and anchorage?
Retention is the ability of the aligner to stay seated on the teeth. Anchorage is the resistance available against unwanted dental movement. Good retention may support force transfer, but it does not by itself establish adequate anchorage.
Can the lower dental arch anchor movements in the upper arch?
The opposing arch can participate in a planned interarch force system and provide additional dental support. The response of both arches must be monitored because interarch forces act on both sets of teeth.
Are temporary anchorage devices always necessary?
No. Many aligner cases can be planned with appropriate dental anchorage. TADs are considered when an individual case requires additional skeletal support or a force direction that is difficult to obtain with tooth-borne mechanics alone.
Why might molars move forward during aligner retraction?
Retracting anterior teeth produces reciprocal forces on the anchorage unit. If posterior anchorage is insufficient or the aligner deforms unfavorably, molars may move mesially more than planned.
Is a retainer the same as an anchorage appliance?
No. A retainer is primarily intended to maintain dental positions. It may be included in a specifically designed anchorage strategy, but its behavior under active orthodontic loading must be evaluated separately.
Can aligner anchorage prevent all unwanted movement?
No anchorage strategy should be assumed to eliminate every reciprocal effect. The practical objective is to control clinically important unwanted movement as well as possible and make adjustments when necessary.
Does greater anchorage make aligner treatment faster?
Not necessarily. Additional anchorage may make certain force systems more suitable, but overall treatment duration depends on diagnosis, biological response, appliance design, case complexity and adherence. Universal acceleration claims are not supported.
How can clinicians check whether anchorage is being preserved?
Clinical examination, aligner-fit assessment, photographs and appropriately registered three-dimensional scans can help compare the achieved movement against the treatment plan. Additional imaging is used only when clinically justified.
Is Jaw By Jaw™ a form of skeletal anchorage?
No. The Jaw By Jaw™ concept is a staged interarch approach using a stabilized opposing dental arch and a patient-specific SyncSplint® configuration. It must not be confused with bone-supported miniscrew anchorage.
Conclusion: Anchorage Is Part of the Treatment Plan
The central challenge in orthodontic treatment is not simply to move the teeth that need correction. It is to move them while managing the effects of the same forces on the rest of the dentition.
In clear aligner treatment, dental anchorage, opposing-arch support, material behavior and staged movement all influence whether the clinical result approaches the digital plan. For selected cases, hybrid mechanics and temporary skeletal anchorage offer additional options.
Understanding what is being moved—and what is intended to remain stable—allows the clinician to make better decisions about appliance design, treatment sequencing and clinical monitoring.
One Moving Arch. One Anchoring Arch. Then Switch. Within the Jaw By Jaw™ philosophy, that principle highlights the value of coordinated arch planning while remaining subject to the same requirement for biomechanical validation as any other orthodontic protocol.
Scientific References
The following sources provide clinical and biomechanical background. Their findings should be interpreted according to study design and should not be treated as direct validation of a branded appliance or treatment system.
- Castroflorio T, Rossini G, Parrini S. Exploring Aligner Biomechanics: Current Status and Future Perspectives. In: Atlas of Aligner Treatment and Planning: A Case-Based Approach. Chapter 1. (Educational reference used for the discussion of attachment design, reciprocal movements and aligner force systems.)
- Dai FF, Xu TM, Shu G. Comparison of achieved and predicted tooth movement of maxillary first molars and central incisors: First premolar extraction treatment with Invisalign. Angle Orthodontist. 2019;89(5):679–687. doi:10.2319/090418-646.1.
- Castroflorio T, Sedran A, Parrini S, et al. Predictability of orthodontic tooth movement with aligners: effect of treatment design. Progress in Orthodontics. 2023;24:2. doi:10.1186/s40510-022-00453-0. (A correction was subsequently published in 2023.)
- Marinelli G, Inchingolo AD, et al. Temporary Anchorage Devices in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review. Bioengineering. 2025;12(5):531. doi:10.3390/bioengineering12050531.
- Gu S, Park JH, Boulakroune R, Wang J, Long H. Integration of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices into clear aligner therapy: a scoping review. Seminars in Orthodontics. Published online August 27, 2026. doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2026.08.003.
- Sawady M, Dhayihi FA, et al. Temporary Anchorage Devices and Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2026;18(6):e110940. doi:10.7759/cureus.110940.
- Kravitz ND, Miller S, Bowman SJ, Wilmes B. Hybrid aligner treatment. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics. 2023;57(1):9–15. PubMed record.
- D’Antò V, Oliva G, Nieri M, et al. Indications and limits of clear aligner therapy: an international modified Delphi consensus study. Progress in Orthodontics. 2025;26:28. doi:10.1186/s40510-025-00575-1.
Disclaimer: information is educational and does not replace an orthodontic diagnosis or individualized professional advice.