ReviewPolymers2025
Biocompatibility and Safety of 3D Printing Resins for Orthodontic Aligners: A Critical Review of Current Evidence.
Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clear Aligners as a Prescribed Source of Unmeasured Intra-Oral Micro- and Nanoplastic Exposure: Release Mechanisms, Human Evidence, Salivary Biomonitoring and the EU Regulatory Context.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Direct-printed aligners in orthodontics: Integrating digital design, materials science, and clinical biomechanics.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Review
- Review
- Biocompatibility of Direct 3D-Printed Clear Aligner Resins: A Comparative In Vitro Cytotoxicity Analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Next-Generation Orthodontics: Functional Resins, Biomechanics, Biocompatibility, and Current Clinical Reality of Direct 3D-Printed Aligners.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- The Environmental Burden and Sustainability Challenges of Clear Aligners: Implications for Public Health, Practice, Policy, and Future Research-A Scoping Review.International journal of dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orthodontic aligners 3D-printed in resin currently provide a viable alternative to thermoformed ones. However, concerns have been raised regarding their biocompatibility. This review addressed the available scientific evidence on the biological properties of marketed resins for 3D printing of orthodontic aligners, encompassing cytotoxicity, estrogenicity, biofilm formation, and oral soft tissues reactions. A comprehensive literature search of several databases was conducted and PRISMA guidelines were followed to summarize the retrieval. Eleven studies were included in the review. They provided information on only three marketed resins: Tera Harz TC-85 DAC and Tera Harz TA-28 (Graphy) and Clear-A (Senertek). For the last two materials, only one investigation has been performed. Despite the large variability in experimental protocols, the lack of cytotoxicity of Tera Harz TC-85 DAC was a consistent finding. Also, no estrogenic effect was detected for this resin, in line with the lack of any bis-phenol A precursor in its chemical composition. In two clinical studies, oral soft tissue reactions were reported as rare and non-serious occurrences. Biofilm adhesion was regarded as critical for the clinical safety of 3D-printed aligners. Standardization of in vitro protocols, also including more clinically relevant settings, chemical characterization of the resins' eluates, and collection of additional in vivo data are advised to improve the quality of the evidence.
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.