ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2026
The effect of using dental loupes on the accuracy of aligner attachments and flash adhesive area after bonding.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether the use of dental loupes improves the accuracy of aligner attachments and reduces the amount of composite flash after bonding.
methodsSix epoxy resin-printed models (n=14 teeth per model) were created to produce upper arches. All attachments were bonded with G-ænial Posterior composite using the same aligner template, and the protocols differed regarding the use of a dental loupe. The attachments were bonded using the dental magnifying loupe at 2.5X magnification in the "with loupe" Group 1 (n=42 teeth), and with the naked eye in the "without loupe" Group 2 (n=42 teeth). All bonded attachments were scanned and compared to those of a reference model using Geomagic Control X software to assess accuracy, with a focus on the highest deviations (defects and excesses) between the reference attachment and the results from different bonding protocols. The amounts of flash adhesive were also measured. Independent Samples T-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used. The significance level was set at 0.05.
resultsThe maximum deviation in excess was 0.46 mm (0.2-1.21) in Group 2, which was higher than the value in Group 1 (0.38 mm, 0.18-0.79) (p=0.048). Regarding the flash adhesive area, the "without loupe" group showed a significantly higher value (42.01±10.32 mm²) compared to the "with loupe" group (31.79±5.38 mm²) (p<0.001).
conclusionsUsing a magnifying dental loupe revealed significantly lower values in both the flash adhesive area around the attachment and the maximum vertical excess on the attachment surface. Clinicians are advised to use dental loupes during bonding attachments.
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.