ArticleProgress in orthodontics2025
Embrasure aligner fit and thickness in 3D-printed and thermoformed aligners: a microcomputed tomography 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-Generation Orthodontics: Functional Resins, Biomechanics, Biocompatibility, and Current Clinical Reality of Direct 3D-Printed Aligners.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the fit and thickness of aligners at tooth embrasures, comparing three-dimensional (3D)-printed and thermoformed aligners. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty aligners-3D-printed (no-offset and 0.05 mm offset) and thermoformed-were fabricated and mounted on a maxillary dental model. All aligners were scanned using microcomputed tomography. Embrasure gap distance and thickness were measured at coronal and cervical levels, and ratios reflecting aligner fit and thickness changes after fabrication were calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for group and vertical level comparisons.
resultsThe 0.05 mm offset 3D-printed aligners exhibited significantly smaller embrasure gaps than the no-offset 3D-printed and thermoformed aligners, with no significant differences between coronal and cervical levels. The other groups showed larger gaps at the cervical level. The embrasure fit ratio was higher in the 0.05 mm offset 3D-printed group (73-93%) compared with the no-offset 3D-printed group (58-86%) and thermoformed group (44-85%). Thermoformed aligners demonstrated significant thickness reduction after fabrication, with ratios of 36.5-88.5% relative to the original sheet, whereas 3D-printed aligners exhibited significant thickness increases, with ratios of 197-470% relative to the virtual design.
conclusionsThe 0.05 mm offset 3D-printed aligners exhibited a superior fit compared with the no-offset 3D-printed and thermoformed aligners. The 3D-printed aligners showed significant thickness increases at embrasures, in contrast to the notable thickness reductions observed in thermoformed aligners.
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.