ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparison of light transmittance and color changes between polyurethane and copolyester retainer materials after staining and destaining.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Staining and Cleaning Agents on the Colour Stability and Surface Roughness of Clear Aligners.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Effects of cleaning methods on the removal efficacy of Streptococcus mutans biofilm and material properties of thermoplastic aligner materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRetainers are the only effective approach to prevent orthodontic relapse. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in color and light-transmittance of rough and smooth thermoformed polyurethane and copolymer retainer samples after staining in different solutions and destaining with different approaches.
methodsFour hundred copolyester (Essix® ACE) and 400 polyurethane (Zendura®) samples with different surface textures, smooth and rough, were stained in 4 different solutions (n = 100 per solution) over 28 days. Each of the four groups of 100 stained samples of each material was subdivided into 5 groups of 20 samples and subjected to different destaining solutions. Light transmittance and color changes were evaluated using a spectrometer and a spectrophotometer. Mean differences were compared using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and posthoc multiple comparison tests at P = 0.05.
resultsNo significant differences in light transmittance were found between both untreated materials. Both materials were stained in a similar fashion and showed no significant differences between two materials after staining. Coffee and tea stained both materials more significantly than wine, but there was a significant difference of changes of color and light transmittance between rough and smooth surfaces during the destaining in coffee- and tea-stained samples of copolyester material. All destaining solutions were effective at removing all stains on the samples. The surface roughness of the material plays a significant role in the ability of the materials to be destained, demonstrating a more significant greater effect on cleaning rough samples for improvements in light-transmittance and greater changes in color.
conclusionsThis study concluded that the surface of materials plays a significant role in the material destaining and staining. In addition, the different polymers used for retainer fabrication exhibited different responses during the destaining process depending on types of stains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.