ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Potential Cytotoxicity of Orthodontic Aligners in the Oral Environment: A Scoping Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Review
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
Abstract
backgroundClear aligner therapy (CAT) is increasingly popular due to aesthetic and functional advantages. Recent advances allow direct 3D printing of aligners, raising questions about their cytotoxicity and biocompatibility under intraoral conditions.
objectivesTo review and synthesize current evidence on the cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of 3D-printed and thermoformable orthodontic aligners, and to identify factors affecting cellular responses. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original research published from 2021 to 2026 evaluating the safety of orthodontic aligners; conference abstracts, editorials, and review papers were excluded. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library; search terms "aligner" AND "biocompatibility"; last search conducted on 31 January 2026. CHARTING
methodsData on authors, publication year, material type, experimental model, cytotoxicity assessment (extraction solvent, incubation period, cell line, and cell exposure), and main results were extracted independently by two reviewers.
resultsFourteen in vitro studies were included, seven on thermoformable aligners and seven on directly 3D-printed aligners; no clinical trials were identified. Material composition, post-processing, and oral environmental factors influenced cytotoxicity. Some materials exhibited acceptable biocompatibility, whereas others showed varying cytotoxic effects, indicating inconsistencies across studies.
conclusionsDirectly 3D-printed and thermoformable aligners show potential for safe intraoral use, but evidence is limited to in vitro studies. Further standardized in vitro and in vivo research is needed to reliably assess cytotoxicity and ensure patient safety before widespread clinical implementation.
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.