ArticleProgress in orthodontics2025
Reliability of different composite materials in aligner treatments: a comprehensıve in vitro 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundClear aligner therapy has become increasingly prevalent in orthodontics, with composite attachments serving as critical components for achieving predictable tooth movements. Despite their importance, composite material selection remains largely empirical. This double-blind in vitro study assessed four composite materials' performance as aligner attachments under simulated clinical conditions.
methodsNinety-six extracted human teeth were arranged in upper and lower arch configurations. Four composite systems were evaluated: Omnichroma (79% filler), GC Aligner Connect (orthodontic-specific), G-Aenial Universal Injectable (69% filler, flowable), and Tetric Prime/Evoflow combination (dual-viscosity system). Each underwent aging simulation including 2308 thermal cycles (5-55 °C) and 840 insertion-removal procedures per 12-week period. Digital analysis assessed placement accuracy and volumetric changes at 12, 24, 48, and 96 weeks. Parameters evaluated included operation time, shear bond strength, placement accuracy, and wear resistance. All procedures were performed by a single calibrated operator following double-blind protocols. Polymerization utilized LED curing (1200 mW/cm
resultsThe Tetric combination required significantly longer placement time (31.08 ± 5.14 versus 5.22 ± 0.74 s for GC Aligner Connect, P < 0.001). Three-dimensional analysis revealed the Tetric combination demonstrated 81.24 ± 19.71% overflow versus 44.62 ± 19.91% for GC Aligner Connect (P < 0.001). After 96 weeks, G-aenial Universal Injectable showed significantly greater volume loss (27.40 ± 18.44%) compared to Omnichroma (18.29 ± 6.78%), GC Aligner Connect (17.56 ± 2.18%), and Tetric combination (14.22 ± 3.70%, all P < 0.001). Bond strength testing revealed no significant differences between groups (18.88-23.23 MPa, P = 0.121), with all materials exceeding clinical requirements.
conclusionsMaterial viscosity and filler content substantially influence clinical performance during extended treatments. GC Aligner Connect demonstrated optimal balance of placement efficiency, dimensional accuracy, and durability for routine applications. High-viscosity composites showed superior long-term stability despite longer placement times. Injectable composites offered excellent efficiency but demonstrated accelerated wear after 48 weeks. These findings provide evidence-based guidance for material selection in clear aligner therapy, suggesting material choice should align with anticipated treatment duration and clinical requirements.
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.