ArticleProgress in orthodontics2025
Advances in clear aligner therapy: comparative evaluation of the optical properties and bacterial adhesion of 3D direct-printed and thermoformed aligners.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ageing effects on chemical, physical, mechanical, and morphological properties of clear aligners - a systematic review.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Hygroscopic behaviour and colour stability of 3D-printed and thermoformed aligner materials: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundClear aligner therapy is gaining traction owing to its esthetics and comfort. Although most aligners use thermoforming, 3D printing offers advantages such as higher accuracy and reduced waste. While literature on the properties of some 3D-printed aligner materials compared to thermoformed ones is available, a comprehensive study is currently lacking that compares all three materials (iLuxclear (LC), Graphy Clear Aligner (GY), and RightBio Clear Aligner (RD)) with thermoformed materials, particularly regarding optical and biofilm adhesion characteristics. METHODOLOGY: Three 3D direct-printed materials (LC, GY and RD) and two thermoformed materials (easyDu (ED) and Biolon (SC)) were tested. Surface morphology was analyzed by stereomicroscopy. Surface roughness (Ra) was measured at baseline (0 day) and after 45 days of immersion in artificial saliva. Light transmittance and color stability (ΔE
resultsThe 3D direct-printed aligners, particularly the LC group, exhibited increased surface morphology irregularities and significantly higher Ra values than the thermoformed materials; Ra increased after 45 days of immersion in artificial saliva across all groups. The thermoformed materials maintained stable color integrity, while the 3D-direct printed materials varied in performance. GY demonstrated a uniform surface structure, lower roughness, and the highest color stability, whereas LC and RD experienced significant discoloration. The RD group exhibited significantly higher S. mutans adhesion, whereas the thermoformed materials exhibited superior biofilm resistance. Notably, GY achieved comparable S. mutans adhesion to the thermoformed materials after a 7-day culture.
conclusionsAmong the 3D direct printed aligners, GY achieved comparable surface and microbiological performance to conventional options. These findings underscore their potential for balancing esthetics, susceptibility to bacterial adhesion, and clinical performance in clear aligner therapy.
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.