Objectives: The objective of this clinical study was to assess the predicted TREATMENT OUTCOME and actual TREATMENT OUTCOME and compare the models of both the groups so as to evaluate the effi cacy of tooth movement with clear aligner. Methods: The sample size included 10 cases with mild anterior crowding treated with aligner therapy. The predicted software models were superimposed on the Clinical STL models at various stages by using MeshLab software (Developed at the Visual Computing Lab at ISTI-CNR with the support of the 3D-co-form project). The predicted software models showing orthodontic tooth movement was compared with the actual movement achieved clinically. Results: The results of this study have shown that when a comparison was made on the basis of irregularity scores in both the groups, it was seen that the irregularity score was more in Clinical STL group at each stage such as 2. 55 at T4, 1. 65 at T6 and 1. 0 at T8 whereas 2. 0 at T4. 0. 90 at T6 and 0. 25 at T8 in the Software model group. Also, on comparing mean accuracy these three stages, the analysis of data showed the mean accuracy at T4 is 62. 5%, mean accuracy at T6 is 68. 8% and the mean accuracy at T8 is 78. 1%. Conclusions: The predicted software models do not accurately refl ect the patient’ s tooth position. There is an overestimation by predicted software as compared to the actual achieved tooth position. There is a need of overcorrection to be built in the TREATMENT planning stage itself and execution of the anticipated end result.