Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38595485›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024

Effectiveness and Biocompatibility of Tooth Aligners Made from Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PeT-G), Polypropylene (PP), Polycarbonate (PC), Thermoplastic Polyurethanes (TPUs), and Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA): A Systematic Review.

Preetham Ravuri, Ajay K Kubavat, Vipul Rathi, T Luke John, Praveen K Varma, Sheetal Mujoo, Vinej Somaraj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing Technology for Conducting Nasoalveolar Molding for Infants With Cleft Lip and Palate: A Scoping Review.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Preetham RavuriDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat, India.
Ajay K KubavatDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat, India.
Vipul RathiDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, VYWS Dental College and Hospital, Amravati, Maharashtra, India.
T Luke JohnDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopeadics, Anil Neerukonda Institute of Dental Sciences, Sangivalasa, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Praveen K VarmaDepartment of Orthodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Sheetal MujooDivision of Oral Medicine and Radiology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Vinej SomarajDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, Rajas Dental College and Hospital, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review examines the efficacy and biocompatibility of orthodontic clear aligner tooth aligners constructed from polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PeT-G), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC), thermoplastic polyurethanes (TPUs), and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA). Materials and Methods: To find relevant papers published through September 2021, PubMed was searched extensively. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the effectiveness and biocompatibility of the aligner materials were included. Data were extracted independently, and the quality of included research was appraised using relevant procedures. The research variability necessitated a narrative synthesis. Results: Five studies were included for comparison. All materials were biocompatible; however, PeT-G and EVA aligners caused the least tissue irritation. Patients preferred TPU aligners for initial comfort and PeT-G aligners for transparency and endurance. Conclusion: Biocompatible PeT-G, PP, PC, TPU, and EVA tooth aligners fix malocclusions. Aligner materials should be chosen based on patient preferences, treatment goals, and material qualities. For stronger proof, a longer-term study is needed.

Indexed as

Ethylene-vinyl acetatepolycarbonatepolyethylene terephthalate glycolpolypropylenethermoplastic polyurethanestooth aligners

Identifiers

PMID38595485
PMCPMC11001044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.