Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
A randomised controlled trial comparing thermoformed and 3D-printed retainers in young adults: evaluation of surface roughness, surface morphology, and mechanical properties.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the surface roughness, surface morphology, and mechanical properties of direct 3D-printed retainers (3DPR) and thermoformed retainers (TFR) after six months of intraoral use.
methodsThis study reports a secondary laboratory objective of a previously published randomised controlled trial (Boo et al. 2026) and included a subset of 10 participants (n = 5 per group). TFRs were fabricated using 1.0 mm Erkodur blanks, while 3DPRs were designed with a uniform thickness of 0.75 mm and printed using NextDent Ortho Flex resin. For each participant, unused upper and lower retainers served as controls, while the corresponding retainers were retrieved after six months of intraoral use. Surface roughness parameters (Ra and Rq) were measured on the cameo and intaglio surfaces using contact profilometry. Surface morphology was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. Mechanical properties were assessed by instrumented indentation testing. Upper- and lower-arch measurements were averaged at the participant level for statistical analysis.
resultsThe 3DPR group generally exhibited higher surface roughness values than TFR, with statistically significant differences observed at the intaglio surface at both time points and at the cameo surface after six months (Ra and Rq, p < 0.05). No significant within-group changes in Ra or Rq were observed over time. Surface morphology analysis demonstrated more pronounced surface irregularities in 3DPR compared with TFR, which showed relatively smooth surfaces. For mechanical properties, TFR demonstrated statistically significantly higher Martens hardness, indentation modulus, and indentation hardness than 3DPR at baseline (all p < 0.05), with further increases after six months, whereas 3DPR showed declines in these properties (p < 0.05).
conclusionsIn this pilot laboratory study, 3DPR showed higher surface roughness and more significant decreases in indentation-based mechanical properties after six months of intraoral use compared to TFR, indicating potentially lower mechanical durability under these conditions. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42782400What 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.