ArticlePeerJ2025
Evaluation of enamel integrity after clear aligner attachments removal: a risk-benefit comparison of one-step tools.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. 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.
- Enamel Integrity and Residual Composite Following Clear Aligner Attachment Removal: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
- Potential for vertical control using direct 3D‑printed mandibular advancement clear aligners.Clinical oral investigations · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: At the end of clear aligner treatment, attachment removal is essential to restore natural tooth morphology while preserving enamel integrity. This study aimed to compare the effects of seven different composite removal instruments on the enamel surface using a risk-benefit model. Materials: The instruments assessed were: OneGloss, Enhance, SM 104, Sof-Lex disc (coarse grit), tungsten carbide bur, zirconia bur, and white stone bur. Seventy extracted premolar teeth were bonded with standardized condensable composite attachments (2 × 4 × 1 mm). Enamel integrity was quantitatively assessed by measuring surface roughness (µm) and enamel loss depth (mm), and qualitatively analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The time required for attachment removal was recorded in seconds. A risk-benefit model was applied to compare enamel damage and time efficiency across tools. Results: White stone bur exhibited higher surface roughness and greater enamel loss compared to other groups ( Conclusion: OneGloss and SM 104 demonstrated superior time efficiency and preservation of enamel integrity compared to other evaluated tools.
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.