## 1 Introduction  
Clear aligner therapy (CAT) has gained notable popularity amongst adult patients as of 2022 with the conventional orthodontic appliance treatment having \"gone out with the arXiv\". Invisalign(r) (Align Technology, Santa Clara, CA, USA) treatment has been an esthetic alternative to the conventional orthodontic appliance in treating minor-to-moderate malocclusions since 2007 [1]. As of 2022, there are 13.4 million patients, 1.2 billion total aligners shipped, and about 229 thousand Invisalign(r) trained doctors across the globe (Align Technology, Q2 Corporate Face Sheet). Despite its prevalence, there is not enough evidence on the reliability of ClinCheck(r) predictability partly because there has been a major advancement in the generations of Invisalign(r) [2], rendering previous research findings obsolete. This objection has been noted in recent systematic reviews, which state that no conclusion can be made from the present literature regarding the predictability of movement of teeth and reliability of ClinCheck(r) accuracy [3; 4; 5; 6]  
In terms of the accuracy of sagittal movements, overjet and interincisal angles have been assessed. In 2012, [PERSON] et al. [7] conducted a retrospective study to assess pretreatment and post-treatment models and ClinCheck(r) measurements of 50 patients between the ages of 15 and 63 years old. They found that the mean difference between the achieved and predicted outcome was 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.54 mm. In terms of the interincisal angle, in 2014, [PERSON] et al. [8] compared pretreatment and post-treatment models and ClinCheck(r) measurements of 10 patients between 2011 and 2012. They found that the mean accuracy of incisor torque with attachment was 49.1%, while torque with power ridge was 51.5%. Upon assessment of the transverse dimension, [PERSON] et al. [9], in 2017, reported an 88.7% accuracy of upper intercanine width when measured from cusp tip to cusp tip, a 100% accuracy of lower intercanine width, a 76.6% accuracy of upper intermalor width, and a 100% accuracy of lower intermalor width. When measured from cervical margin to cervical margin, the results were 67.8% accuracy for upper intercanine width, 61% for lower intercanine width, 52.9% for lower intermalor width, and 70.7% for lower intermalor width. The method of assessment included pretreatment and post-treatment digital models of 64 adult Caucasian patients. They concluded that ClinCheck(r) predictions overly anticipated bodily movements and the movement observed was dental tipping more than bodily movement. Moreover, predictions tended to worsen the more posterior the measurement was taken. More recently, [PERSON] et al. [10], in 2022, reported a mean accuracy of 72.2% for upper intercanine width, 82.3% for lower intercanine width, 63.5% for upper intermalor width, and 79.8% for lower intermalor width. The method of outcome assessment included Invisalign's(r) arch width table, centroids, and software calipers of 57 adult patients. When it came to the vertical dimension, [PERSON] et al. [7] also reported a mean difference of 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.87 mm for overbite when comparing pretreatment and post-treatment models and ClinCheck(r) measurements of 50 patients between the ages of 15 and 63 years old. In the same study, [PERSON] et al. [11] reported a decrease in Little's Irregularity Index between pretreatment and post-treatment casts in the maxillary (\(-\)3.8 mm) and mandibular (\(-\)5 mm) casts. While recent studies evaluated the accuracy of ClinCheck(r) models provided by Align Technology(r), it is important to note that other measurement methods were used to evaluate the achieved and predicted results of Invisalign(r) treatment. For example, some studies have utilized cephalometric radiographs to measure the changes in tooth position before and after treatment [12]. Cephalometric analysis allows for the evaluation of skeletal and dental changes, which may not be fully captured in digital models.