ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2026
Micro-CT evaluation of aligner fit and thickness in 3D-printed and thermoformed aligners: Differences in relation to inner-surface offset design and tooth regions.
Article in Korean 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
Objective: To assess the adaptation and thickness of three-dimensional (3D)-printed and thermoformed aligners, comparing differences in relation to fabrication methods, inner-surface offset, and tooth region. Methods: Thirty maxillary aligners were fabricated: 3D-printed aligners (0.5 mm) with no offset (n = 10) or a 0.05-mm offset (n = 10) and thermoformed aligners from 0.75-mm sheets (n = 10). All aligners were fitted onto a dental model and scanned using micro-computed tomography. Gap distance and thickness were measured at five anterior and seven posterior tooth regions. Thickness ratios after fabrication were calculated. Group and tooth-region differences were analyzed using oneway analysis of variance with Tukey's post hoc test, or Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Results: The no-offset 3D-printed aligners showed larger gaps (0.07-0.15 mm) than the 0.05-mm offset and thermoformed aligners (0.05-0.09 mm). Thickness was greater in 3D-printed aligners (0.68-1.08 mm) than in thermoformed aligners (0.47-0.70 mm). Thickness ratios exceeded 100% in 3D-printed aligners, particularly at the cervical and central fossa regions, whereas thermoformed aligners showed thinning (< 100%), most notably at the labio/buccocervical areas. In comparisons based on tooth region, no-offset 3D-printed aligners showed greater gaps at the buccal, buccocervical, central fossa, and palatal cusp tip regions ( Conclusions: A 0.05-mm offset in 3D-printed aligners produced gap values comparable to those obtained with thermoformed aligners and showed consistent adaptation over tooth regions. 3D-printed aligners tended to show greater thickness than their virtual design, whereas thermoformed aligners showed reduced thickness.
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.