ArticlePloS one2026
Bond strength of thermoformed and 3D-printed aligners with universal primer versus one-step aligner adhesive with and without sandblasting: An in vitro study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Biocompatibility of a novel directly printed orthodontic aligner at variable material thicknesses.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesChairside bonding of auxiliaries directly to aligners can avoid remanufacturing trays, but optimal protocols may be substrate-specific across modern thermoformed and 3D-printed materials. This study aimed to compare bond strength and failure mode across six representative aligner materials using a universal primer-orthodontic adhesive combination and a one-step aligner adhesive, with and without sandblasting. MATERIALS AND
methodsPolyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and glycol-modified polycyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate (PCTG), together with three 3D-printed resins (TA-28, TC-85DAC, DCA), were prepared as 0.76-mm plates (n = 64). Specimens received alumina sandblasting or no treatment, then were bonded with either of two bonding strategies (n = 16). After thermocycling, bond strength was tested, and failures were scored by ARI. Two- and three-way ANOVA and proportional-odds modeling assessed effects (α = 0.05).
resultsBond strength showed significant main effects of material and sandblasting, with significant material-sandblasting and material-primer interactions. The primer main effect was not significant. Post hoc tests confirmed substrate-specific rankings. PETG with Bond Aligner (non-sandblasted) reached 26.71 MPa, while DCA with universal primer (sandblasted) reached 22.36 MPa. Sandblasting generally increased bond strength, with some exceptions. Failure mode was material-dependent and not completely parallel with bond strength.
conclusionsBonding efficacy depends on the aligner substrate. For thermoformed trays, a one-step aligner adhesive is preferable, with sandblasting contraindicated for PETG but advantageous for more elastic TPU and PCTG. For 3D-printed trays, a universal primer-orthodontic adhesive combination performs more consistently, with sandblasting benefiting DCA and TA-28, whereas TC-85DAC performs slightly better without it.
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.