ArticleBMC oral health2025
Multiparametric performance comparison of dental composites for clear aligner attachments.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Material Properties of Composite Resins Used for Orthodontic Attachments in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review.Biomolecules · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of Astaxanthin as an Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Agent in Human Health: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Assessment of biofilm resistance, degree of conversion, and mechanical properties of nanomodified 3D-printed orthodontic clear aligner (in-vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effects of adding graphene oxide to composite resin: An in vitrostudy.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2026Article
- Clear aligner attachment accuracy and composite excess using flowable composite resins of varying viscosities.The Angle orthodontist · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs clear aligner technology (CAT) gains prominence, the performance of composite attachments - critical devices for optimizing aligner retention and tooth movement control - require systematic evaluation. This study assesses three light-cured composites (Filtek™ Z250 XT, Z350 XT, and P60; 3 M ESPE) regarding color stability, shear bond strength (SBS), and durability to establish evidence-based selection criteria.
methodsAttachments were bonded to mandibular premolars, simulating the clinical process, and materials were tested for color changes (after immersion in coffee, cola, or iced tea), SBS, and durability (wear volume, surface roughness, morphology, post-aging SBS). The data obtained from the study were statistically evaluated via the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Levene test, t-tests, one-way analysis of variance and chi-square test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsZ250 showed significantly higher coffee - induced discoloration than Z350 (p < 0.05) and P60 (p < 0.01), exceeding clinical acceptability (ΔE
conclusionsZ250 underperformed in color stability, SBS, and durability versus Z350/P60, though demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Z350 offers outstanding color durability and higher SBS but risks enamel damage from interfacial delamination. P60 excels with color stability, acceptable adhesive remnants, and exceptional wear resistance, serving diverse clinical needs. Clinical decisions could prioritize P60 for function-aesthetic balance, with targeted Z350/Z250 use in special scenarios.
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.