ArticleScientific reports2025
Impact of toothbrushing on aesthetic and mechanical properties of hydrophilic antibacterial coating materials for orthodontic clear retainers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study aims to analyze the aesthetic, mechanical, and antibacterial properties of clear retainer materials with an antibacterial coating. Specifically, it evaluates whether the coating can retain its effectiveness after repeated toothbrushing by assessing material integrity, surface roughness, and bacterial adhesion in vitro. Four types of 1.0-mm thermoplastic sheets widely used in orthodontic clear retainers were tested: PUL (Magicfoil R, Osstem, Korea), PUC (Magicfoil R with a hydrophilic antibacterial coating), PUZ (Zendura, Bay Materials, USA), and PET (CA Retention Foil, Scheu-Dental, Germany). The PUL, PUC, and PUZ sheets were composed of polyurethane (PU), whereas the PET sheets were made of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG). Flexural strength, tensile strength, and cyclic load tests were conducted to compare the mechanical properties of these four materials, and transparency was compared to evaluate aesthetic properties. The surface roughness of the specimens and the antibacterial ability against Streptococcus mutans were measured before and after toothbrushing. The antibacterial coating did not change the mechanical or aesthetic properties of the retainer material. After brushing, all types' materials had similar surface roughness values as before brushing. Additionally, the antibacterial coating group (PUC) exhibited lower bacterial adhesion than the uncoated group (PUL), with reductions of 36% before and 40% after toothbrushing. The difference was statistically significant before toothbrushing (p < 0.05), but not after simulated toothbrushing. These results confirm that the hydrophilic coating has an antibacterial effect and that this effect can be maintained even after repeated toothbrushing.
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.