ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2024
Thickness Variations of Thermoformed and 3D-Printed Clear Aligners.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Thermoforming Setup Affect Thickness in Thermoplastic Orthodontic Appliances? A Comparison of Single vs. Dual-Model Fabrication.Polymers · 2026Article
- Thermoforming time variability of PET-G and TPU aligner sheets across consecutive thermoforming cycles: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative Assessment of Dimensional Accuracy and Fit of Aligners Manufactured by Direct Printing and Thermoforming: AnTurkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Force systems of direct printed and thermoformed aligners with different trimlines during rotational movements: an in vitro analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Automated micro-CT quantification of clear aligner fit: a pilot comparison of manufacturing processes.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Thickness-dependent biomechanical accuracy of additively manufactured and thermoformed orthodontic aligners: an in vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Mechanical properties of thermoformed and direct-printed aligner materials after immersion in 37 °C water: a 14-day in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Thickness distribution and site-specific variability of thermoformed multilayer clear aligners: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Cytotoxic effect of 3D-printed and thermoformed clear aligner materials on human oral fibroblasts: AnKorean journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Force comparison between Perfitalign 4D aligners and thermoformed aligners for mandibular incisor retraction: an in vitro study.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Article
- Article
- Snoring Symptoms and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Risk Factors Identified by Doctors of Dental Medicine.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2025Article
- 4D-Printed Smart Materials in Clear Aligner Fabrication: A Comprehensive Review :.Galen medical journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess thickness variations of thermoformed and 3D-printed clear aligners. Materials and Methods: Six different thermoplastic materials with different initial thicknesses were used for aligner thermoforming using Biostar® device (Biostar®, SCHEU-DENTAL GmbH, Iserlohn, Germany). Also, two different dental resins were used to create the printed aligners in three digitally designed thicknesses using IZZI Direct printer (3Dtech, Zagreb, Croatia). The aligners were measured using an electronic micrometer (ELECTRONIC UNIVERSAL MICROMETER, Schut Geometrical Metrology, Groningen, The Netherlands, accuracy: 0.001 mm) on a total of 20 points per aligner. Statistical analysis was performed using the JASP program (JASP, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Results: The difference between the thermoformed and printed groups was statistically significant. Significant differences between different thermoformed materials and between 3D-printed materials were found. The thickness of thermoformed aligners deviated more in the upper jaw, whereas the thickness of printed aligners deviated more in the lower jaw. Both differences were statistically significant. The greatest average deviation from the initial thickness was found in Duran 0.75; Erkodur 0.6; Erkoloc-Pro 1.0; IZZI 0.5; NextDent 0.6 and NextDent A 0.6. NextDent group had the lowest deviations for all teeth of both jaws, except for upper and lower first molar where NextDent A group was more accurate. Conclusions: Thermoformed aligners showed decreased values, while printed ones showed mostly increased values compared to the original material thickness. The highest mean deviation belonged to IZZI group, and the NextDent group had the lowest mean deviation. The thickness of both aligners was thinner at the edges compared to the thickness at cusps and fissures.
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.