ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Preclinical evaluation of 3D-Printed orthodontic aligners using an electro-typodont model.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Retentive force of thermoformed and direct 3D-printed clear aligners with different margin designs and attachments: anFrontiers in oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The use of 3D printing in orthodontic aligner production addresses several limitations of conventional thermoforming. However, existing experimental techniques for evaluating aligner efficacy remain restricted. This study aims to introduce a novel experimental approach employing an electric typodont model to assess the effectiveness of 3D-printed orthodontic aligners in correcting rotation of the maxillary right central incisor (Tooth 11). Materials and Methods: An electric typodont, equipped with heat-activated wax blocks, simulated four rotational severities of Tooth 11: 22°, 32°, 42°, and 52°. Digital scans were processed in Maestro 3D software to design virtual treatment plans, from which four sequential aligners were fabricated per severity level. In total, 240 aligners were 3D-printed, using Tera Harz TC-85 resin, in three thicknesses: 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 mm. Each aligner underwent a 10-minute heating cycle, followed by a 10-min cooling period. Tooth rotation was measured manually using a protractor relative to a fixed baseline. The procedure was repeated five times per subgroup, with repositioning guided by custom guiding stents. Results: Across all aligner thicknesses, 80.0%-93.1% of the planned rotational correction was achieved by the fourth aligner, leaving residual rotations of approximately 4°-5°. Higher initial rotations resulted in a greater percentage of corrections (p < 0.001). The 0.50-mm and 1.00-mm aligners demonstrated faster early-stage correction, whereas the 0.75-mm aligner exhibited a more gradual and consistent derotation pattern throughout the treatment stages (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The electric typodont appears to be a reliable pre-clinical tool for evaluating the effectiveness of aligners. Furthermore, 3D-printed aligners successfully achieved incisor derotation without the use of attachments. Furthermore, while variations in aligner thickness influenced the dynamics of derotation, they did not alter the ultimate correction outcome.
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.