ArticleCureus2026
Impact of Common Cleaning Protocols on the Light Transmittance of Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PET-G) Clear Aligners: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The optical clarity of clear aligners is essential for esthetics, and routine cleaning protocols may alter their light transmittance. This study evaluated the effect of commonly used cleaning methods on the light transmittance of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G) clear aligners in vitro. Materials and methods Forty PET-G specimens (10 × 10 mm) were divided into four groups (n = 10): Control, Listerine® rinse (Johnson & Johnson, Neuss, Germany), Corega® effervescent tablets (Stafford-Miller, Dungarvan, Ireland), and toothbrush with Colgate® toothpaste (Colgate-Palmolive, Guangzhou, China). The specimens were subjected to the assigned cleaning protocols once daily for 14 days. Light transmittance was measured using a UV-Vis-NIR (Ultraviolet-Visible-Near Infrared) spectrophotometer. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, Levene's test, Welch's ANOVA, and Games-Howell post hoc comparisons at α = 0.05. Measurement reproducibility was assessed using repeated measurements and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results Measurement reproducibility was excellent, with no significant systematic difference between repeated measurements (P = 0.515) and an ICC of 0.993. The highest mean light transmittance was observed in the Listerine group (87% ± 2%), followed by the control and Corega groups (85% ± 3% each), whereas the toothbrush group showed the lowest value (64% ± 6%). Levene's test indicated unequal variances (P = 0.001), and Welch's ANOVA showed a significant difference among groups (P < 0.001). Games-Howell post hoc analysis revealed that the toothbrush group had significantly lower transmittance than all other groups (P < 0.001), while no significant differences were found between the control, Corega, and Listerine groups. Conclusion Toothbrush-and-toothpaste cleaning markedly reduced the light transmittance of PET-G clear aligners, whereas chemical cleaning methods preserved optical properties. Non-abrasive cleaning approaches may be preferable for maintaining aligner transparency.
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.