ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Retentive force of thermoformed and direct 3D-printed clear aligners with different margin designs and attachments: an
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
Introduction: Clear aligner retention is essential for maintaining appliance stability, intimate aligner fit, and effective orthodontic force delivery. With the increasing interest in direct 3D-printed aligners (DPA), comparative evidence on their retention behavior relative to conventional thermoformed aligners (TFA) under different design conditions remains limited. Objective: This Methods: A total of 72 aligners were fabricated using two Methods: thermoforming with Zendura VIVA, 0.89 mm, and direct 3D printing with Tera Harz TC-85DAC, designed thickness 0.50 mm. Specimens were assigned to 12 groups according to fabrication method, attachment condition (NA or YA), and margin design: Straight 2 mm, Straight 0 mm, or Scalloped 0 mm. Retentive force was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Each aligner was tested five times. Group comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney Results: TFA generally demonstrated higher retentive force than DPA, but lower retentive force in the Scalloped 0 mm design without attachments. The Straight 2 mm design produced the highest retentive force across groups, whereas the Scalloped 0 mm design showed the lowest values. The highest mean retentive force was observed in the TFA-YA Straight 2 mm group (26.18 ± 1.67 N), and the lowest in the TFA-NA Scalloped 0 mm group (3.25 ± 0.94 N). Attachments increased retentive force in most conditions, with a pronounced effect in the Scalloped 0 mm design. Conclusion: Clear aligner retention varied according to fabrication method, margin design, attachment condition, and material-related characteristics. Individualized aligner design may help optimize retention and improve biomechanical performance in clear aligner therapy.
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.