ArticleProgress in orthodontics2024
Salivary levels of eluents during Invisalign™ treatment with attachments: an in vivo investigation.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Salivary parameters in individuals undergoing orthodontic treatment with clear aligners: a scoping review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Aligners do shed microplastics: Evidence is clear, clinical risk is not.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Quantification of Bisphenol A in the Saliva of Patients Wearing Clear Aligners.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to investigate qualitatively and quantitatively the elution of substances from polyester-urethane (Invisalign™) aligners and resin composite attachments (Tetric EvoFlow) in vivo.
methodsPatients (n = 11) treated with the aligners and attachments (16 per patient, without other composite restorations) for an average of 20 months, who were planned for attachment removed were enrolled in the study. Patients were instructed to rinse with 50 mL of distilled water upon entry and the rinsing solution was collected (before removal). Then, the attachments were removed with low-speed tungsten carbide burs for adhesive residue removal, a thorough water rinsing was performed immediately after the grinding process to discard grinding particle residues, and subsequently, after a second water-rinsing the solution was collected for analysis (after removal). The rinsing solutions were analyzed for targeted (LC-MS/MS: Bis-GMA, DCDMA, UDMA, BPA) and untargeted (LC-HRMS: screening of leached species and their degradation products) compounds.
resultsTargeted analysis revealed a significant reduction in BPA after attachment removal (4 times lower). Bis-GMA, DCDMA, UDMA were below the detection limit before removal but were all detectable after removal with Bis-GMA and UDMA at quantifiable levels. Untargeted analysis reviled the presence of mono-methacrylate transformation products of Bis-GMA (Bis-GMA-M1) and UDMA (UDMA-M1), UDMA without methacrylate moieties (UDMA-M2), and 4-(dimethylamino) benzoic acid (DMAB), the degradation product of the photo-initiator ethyl-4-(dimethylamino) benzoate (EDMAB), all after attachment removal. Several amino acids and endogenous metabolites were also found both before and after removal.
conclusionsElevated levels of BPA were traced instantaneously in patients treated with Invisalign™ and flowable resin composite attachments for the testing period. BPA was reduced after attachment removal, but residual monomers and resin degradation products were found after removal. Alternative resin formulations and attachment materials may be utilized to reduce eluents.
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.