ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2026
Clear aligner attachment accuracy and composite excess using flowable composite resins of varying viscosities.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of clear aligner attachments and quantify excess composite volume when using flowable composite resins with different viscosities in an in vitro setting. The null hypothesis was that viscosity would not significantly impact accuracy or excess. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 samples was evaluated. Four attachment types: ellipsoid (EA), rectangular (RA), beveled (BA), and half-moon (HMA), were applied using three flowable composites: Estelite Universal Flow High (HF), Medium (MF), and Super-Low (SLF) viscosity (Tokuyama Dental, Japan). Attachments were bonded on three-dimensionally printed typodont models and digitally scanned. Digital scans were aligned with reference models using local best-fit analysis. Surface deviation was measured at five points, and overall deviation was represented by arithmetic mean and standard deviation (sigma) values. Excess composite area and volume were calculated. The data were nonnormally distributed, so nonparametric tests were used: Kruskal-Wallis for group comparisons and Mann-Whitney U for pairwise analyses (P < .05). Results: Significant differences in attachment accuracy and excess composite were observed among viscosity groups. In EA and RA groups, HF composite showed significantly greater accuracy than MF and SLF (P = .016, P = .018). In BA, SLF exhibited lower accuracy than HF and MF (P = .005). Excess composite volume was significantly higher in EA and HMA with HF composite (P = .011 and P = .002, respectively). Conclusions: Composite viscosity and attachment shape influence accuracy and excess. High-viscosity resins improve precision but increase excess; low-viscosity resins reduce excess but may compromise accuracy. Both material and attachment design should guide clinical choices in clear aligner treatment.
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.