We are currently living in an era where the use of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing has allowed individualized orthodontic treatments, but has also incorporated enhanced digitalized technology that does not permit improvisation. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze publications that assessed the accuracy and efficiency of the Invisalign® system. A systematic review was performed using a search strategy to identify articles that referenced Invisalign®, which were published between August 2007 and August 2017, and listed in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and LILACS. Additionally, a manual search of clinical trials was performed in scientific journals and other databases. To rate the methodological quality of the articles, a grading system described by the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care was used, in combination with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. We selected 20 articles that met the inclusion criteria and excluded 5 due to excess biases. The level of evidence was high. Although it is possible to treat malocclusions with plastic systems, the results are not as accurate as those achieved by treatment with fixed appliances.

No abstract

No abstract

In our experience, the Parsonnet score performs very well, with calibration and discrimination very high, better than general severity systems, and it is an appropriate tool to assess mortality in cardiac surgery patients. In our experience, the general severity systems perform well to predict mortality after cardiac surgery, with high calibration of MPM II24, MPM II0, and SAPS II; minor calibration for APACHE II; and high discrimination for 3 general systems, but not as well as the Parsonnet score.