ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2025
Measurement of Aligner Thickness and Gap Width in Two Types of Clear Aligner Sheets Manufactured Using Two Different Thermoforming Machines - A Nano-CT Pilot Study.
Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 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.
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
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two thermoforming machines on the gap width and thickness of passive aligners with the same nominal thickness from different manufacturers by using nano-computed tomography (CT). Methods: An intraoral scan of a patient with Angle's Class I malocclusion was conducted, and a 3D maxillary arch model was printed. The aligners (n=16) were fabricated using two thermoforming machines: Ministar machine (n=8) and a Plastpress machine (n=8). Each group was subdivided on the basis of aligner material: polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G) (Group A) and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (Group B). Sheets with a nominal thickness of 0.75 mm were used. Nano-CT was performed, and the rendered 3D models were sliced into central incisor, canine, and molar regions to assess gap width and aligner thickness in the buccal, incisal, and palatal regions. Results: Comparing thermoforming machines, PET-G (p=0.010) and TPU (p=0.004) aligners showed significant differences in gap width in the molar region. Similar results were found for aligner thickness (TPU, p=0.05; PET-G, p=0.004). Comparing PET-G and TPU sheets thermoformed via the same machine, significant differences were observed only in the molar region (p=0.004), with no differences in the canine and incisor regions. Adaptation in the anterior region was greater than in that of the posterior region, whereas aligner thickness increased from posterior to anterior. Conclusion: Aligner material type significantly affected gap width and thickness only in the molar region, whereas the specific thermoforming machine did not substantially affect these characteristics.
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.