ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2026
Debonding characteristics of innovative 3D-printed lingual retainers following artificial aging and acid challenge.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraditional fixed retainers used after orthodontic therapy have many downsides.
objectiveInnovative 3D-printed fixed retainers have been manufactured using nanoceramic hybrid resin-based material (SprintRay OnX®), investigating their durability to support long-term oral functions.
methodsOne hundred acrylic blocks with mounted premolar pairs were allocated into five groups, including three groups of 3D-printed retainers with 1-mm round cross-section, one group with 1.5-mm oval cross-section, and one group with 1.5-mm semi-elliptical cross-section, and conventional multistranded stainless steel G&H® retainers and Respond® retainers. The models with bonded retainers were exposed to artificial aging or acid challenge. The debonding forces and the subsequent failure patterns were investigated.
resultsThe 3D-printed semi-elliptical retainers exhibited the greatest debonding forces, while the 3D-printed oval, G&H®, 3D-printed round, and Respond® retainers decreased in descending order. After the acid challenge, no statistically significant differences were observed between the 3D-printed semi-elliptical and oval retainers. The 3D-printed retainers showed a prevailing cohesive fracture.
conclusionThe debonding forces of 3D-printed semi-elliptical and oval retainers following simulated aging and acid exposure were encouraging. They might be a good candidate as lingual retainers.
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.