ArticlePolymers2026
Rheological and Structural Evaluation of Dental Flowable Composites for Optimized Performance in Transparent Aligner Systems.
Article in Polymers, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clear aligner therapy (CAT) increasingly relies on composite-based attachments to improve force transmission and aligner retention, yet the role of flowable composite properties in clinical performance remains poorly understood. In this study, five commercially available flowable composites used for orthodontic attachments-Aligner FLOW LC, SIMPLY SHADE, SOFT ENA Flow, TETRIC EvoFlow, and VENUS Bulk Flow One-were comparatively investigated through physicochemical, morphological, optical, thermal, and rheological characterization. Scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, thermogravimetric analysis, UV-Vis-NIR and ATR-FTIR spectroscopy, and rheological measurements before and after curing were employed to probe composition, filler content, viscoelastic behavior, and mechanical response. The results revealed marked differences among the investigated materials, with post-curing storage modulus spanning nearly two orders of magnitude, from 0.06 MPa for SOFT ENA Flow to approximately 5 MPa for SIMPLY SHADE. Similarly, the elastic modulus ranged from about 20 MPa to nearly 1000 MPa for the softest and stiffest resins, respectively. Interestingly, SOFT ENA Flow, the softest material after curing, also exhibited the highest pre-curing viscosity, nearly one order of magnitude greater than the least viscous resin, Aligner FLOW LC. These findings highlight an intrinsic trade-off between pre-cure processability and post-cure mechanical stability, providing a rational framework for material selection in orthodontic attachments and supporting more predictable and durable CAT outcomes.
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.