ArticleProgress in orthodontics2025
Accuracy comparison of orthodontic movements obtained with 3D printed and thermoformed aligners: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 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.
- Dimensional behaviors of direct-printed versus thermoformed clear retainers in relation to changes of inter-piece occlusal contact distribution measured by T-scan after intraoral aging: a prospective clinical study.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Orthodontics: Functional Resins, Biomechanics, Biocompatibility, and Current Clinical Reality of Direct 3D-Printed Aligners.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this retrospective cohort study is to calculate the accuracy of dental movement in consecutively treated patients treated with thermoformed and direct printed aligners. METHODOLOGY: Two patient groups were included in the analysis. The first group consisted of 34 consecutively treated patients (23 females, 11 males; mean age 26.3 ± 13.7 years; age range 9-63), who were treated using 3D-printed aligners and a second group included 40 consecutively treated patients (28 females, 12 males; mean age 27.5 ± 12.5 years; age range 12-57), who received treatment with thermoformed aligners made of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG). Digital analysis were performed to evaluate for every tooth torque, tip and rotational movements for each tooth as well as accuracy of planned movement. (Delta-Dent software, Outside Format, Milano, Italy) as well as accuracy of planned movement. The differences between groups in the toothwise movement accuracy were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test The Kruskall-Wallis test was used to evaluate the difference among teeth values. The differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.
results1018 teeth were measured. The overall accuracy of the torque was 60% for the DPA group and 66% for the TFA group; was 52% for the DPA group and 61% for the TFA group for the tip and the overall accuracy for rotations was 58% for the DPA group and 69% for the TFA group; none of the differences resulted statistically significant.
conclusionsAll treatments were successfully completed with similar amounts of refinement stages. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in respect of rotation, tip and torque movements.
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.