ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Evaluation of wear amounts of different composite resin attachments used in clear aligner treatment over a 6-month period: a retrospective study.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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.
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
Objectives: To compare surface wear among three different attachment composite resins over a 6-month follow-up period. Materials and Methods: Intraoral scanning was performed on 28 participants immediately after initial bonding of attachments (T0), and at 1 (T1), 3 (T2), and 6 months (T3) after starting aligner treatment. In Group 1 (N = 154 attachments), Tokuyama Estelite Universal Flow; in Group 2 (N = 166 attachments), Filtek Z350 XT Universal Restorative; and in Group 3 (N = 161 attachments), G-ænial Universal Injectable resins were used for bonding the attachments. The surface wear depth on attachments was measured using superimposed digitized models. Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests were used with a significance set at 5%. Results: As treatment progressed, surface wear increased significantly in all groups (P < .001). The wear amount for Group 3 was significantly greater than that for Groups 1 and 2 at the 3-month period (P < .001). Regarding T0-T3 surface wear, Group 2 (0.03 mm) and Group 3 (0.0609 mm) exhibited significantly greater wear than Group 1 (0.0243 mm; P = .024 and P < .001). Surface wear was also significantly greater in Group 3 than in Group 2 (P < .001). No significant difference was observed in T3-T0 wear values between conventional and optimized attachments within each group. Conclusions: The wear of orthodontic attachments was greatly influenced by the type of composite resin. During the third and sixth months of the clinical period, G-ænial Universal Injectable resin demonstrated significantly greater surface wear than other resins. After 6 months, Tokuyama Estelite Universal Flow displayed the least surface wear.
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.