ArticleBMC oral health2026
Can household ultrasonic cleaners enhance the stain removal efficacy of chemical agents on orthodontic aligners?
Article in BMC oral health, 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
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of household ultrasonic cleaning with/without peroxide-based and peroxide-free cleaning methods for stain removal on polyurethane aligner material.
methodsSeventy-two polyurethane aligner specimens (Invisalign, Align Technology Inc.) were stained for seven days in a standardized coffee solution and randomly assigned to six cleaning protocols (n = 12/group): peroxide-free cleaner (Invisalign Cleaning Crystals [ICC], Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) or peroxide-based cleaner (Corega Proguard [CP], Stafford-Miller Limited, Waterford, Ireland), each applied without, 5, or 10 min of household ultrasonic assistance (Shantou Huan Te Tong Intelligent Technology Co., Guangdong, China; Serial No: 20240001) at 50 kHz. Color was measured at baseline (t0), after staining (t1), and after ultrasonuc cleaning (t2) using a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Compact; VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany). The CIEDE2000 formula was used to calculate color changes (ΔE00), specifically evaluating staining (ΔEt0-t1), net color change ((ΔEt0-t2), and cleaning efficacy (ΔEt1-t2). Data were analyzed using Repeated Measures and two-way ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni adjustment (significant at p < 0.017).
resultsAll specimens showed comparable discoloration after staining (p > 0.05). Cleaning efficacy (ΔEt1–t2) did not differ between cleaning agents, ultrasonic durations, or their interaction (p > 0.05). Net color change (ΔEt0–t2) differed between agents (p = 0.018), with ICC exhibiting lower residual discoloration than CP. Although a significant agent-ultrasonic interaction was detected (p = 0.043), Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant pairwise differences between individual cleaning protocols.
conclusionsHousehold ultrasonic cleaning did not improve the stain-removal efficacy of either cleaning agent. Color recovery was primarily influenced by the chemical formulation of the cleaner rather than ultrasonic assistance.
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.