Danish study examines aligner treatment

Dental Tribune International

Wed. 27. May 2026

save

COPENHAGEN, Denmark: In Denmark, dental care regulations state that orthodontic treatment should ideally be led by orthodontists, but adult aligner treatment is increasingly being provided in general dental practice. This has raised questions about how general dentists and orthodontists differ in their views on indications for aligner treatment and in their diagnosis and treatment planning. A new Danish study has surveyed citizens, general dentists and orthodontists to examine public awareness, patient experiences and professional perspectives on aligner treatment in private dental practice.

The responses showed that public awareness of aligner treatment was generally limited, although younger adults demonstrated greater familiarity with the modality. Most patients learned about aligners through their dentist or from friends and family rather than social media or advertising.

Among patients who had undergone aligner treatment, satisfaction levels were high. Aesthetic improvement was the primary motivation for seeking treatment, reflecting wider international trends in adult orthodontics. Many patients reported that they would still have pursued orthodontic treatment even if aligners had not been available. The authors suggested that this may indicate that the desired treatment outcome outweighed the treatment modality.

The study identified notable differences between orthodontists and general dentists in their approach to diagnosis and treatment planning. Orthodontists more often used lateral cephalograms in diagnosis and made extensive modifications to digital treatment plans before commencing therapy. They also expressed lower levels of satisfaction with treatment outcomes compared with general dentists, a finding which the authors suggested may reflect their specialist experience, different expectations of treatment success or the possibility that they treat more complex cases.

Differences between the practitioner groups were also evident among those who did not offer aligner therapy. General dentists most often cited insufficient experience or education as their reasons for not doing so, whereas orthodontists most often said that fixed appliances achieve better treatment outcomes. The authors noted that, according to the literature, aligners remain less predictable than fixed appliances for certain tooth movements and more complex malocclusion. For example, a recent systematic review concluded that, while aligners offer aesthetic and patient comfort advantages, they may still be inferior to fixed appliances for certain complex orthodontic movements.

For clinicians, the study reinforces the importance of comprehensive diagnosis, appropriate case selection and informed consent in aligner therapy. Some patients reported receiving limited information regarding treatment risks, alternatives and consequences of declining treatment, raising ethical and medico-legal considerations. The authors concluded that the findings point to possible issues regarding information given to patients regarding aligner therapy and differences between practitioner types in diagnostics and treatment planning and that these areas should be investigated further.

The article, titled “Clear aligner treatment in Denmark—a questionnaire survey among citizens and dental practitioners in Denmark”, was published online on 11 May 2026 in Acta Odontologica Scandinavica.