ArticleKorean journal of orthodontics2026
Micro-computed tomography evaluation of aligner fitting on anchorage attachments.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the fit of clear aligners (CAs) manufactured from different materials and thicknesses to anchorage attachments using micro-computed tomography-based (Micro-CT) three-dimensional and two-dimensional analyses. Methods: Forty CAs fabricated from different thicknesses and materials (0.50 mm CA-Soft, 0.625 mm CA-Medium, 0.75 mm CA-Hard polyethylene terephthalate glycol [PET-G], and 0.75 mm CA PRO-Hard ABA) were fitted onto a master model with rectangular attachments on the first and second premolars. Micro-CT scans were obtained to assess the air gap between the aligner and attachment. Total air-gap volume was calculated using three-dimensional volumetric analysis, while mean gap width was measured in predefined two-dimensional sections. Adjusted mean differences were interpreted using a practical relevance threshold of 20 μm. Results: CA PRO-Hard showed the lowest mean three-dimensional air-gap volume, but differences among groups were not statistically significant ( Conclusions: Micro-CT enabled detailed assessment of CA fit. Although volumetric analysis showed no significant material-related differences, section-based analysis demonstrated localized adaptation differences, particularly in palatal, gingival, and sagittomedian regions. CA PRO-Hard showed superior fit in these areas.
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.