ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
Comparative microscopic analysis of plastic dispersion from 3D-printed and thermoformed orthodontic aligners.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects on the midpalatal suture and maxillary arch assessed by occlusal radiographs and three-dimensional digital models in patients treated with invisalign palatal expander and rapid palatal expander: a pilot study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Trial
- Clear Aligners as a Prescribed Source of Unmeasured Intra-Oral Micro- and Nanoplastic Exposure: Release Mechanisms, Human Evidence, Salivary Biomonitoring and the EU Regulatory Context.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Flexural Stiffness and Force Retention of Six 3D-Printed Thermoplastics for Orthodontic Appliances: An In Vitro Screening Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printable Aligner Resins: An In Vitro Study with FTIR Chemical Characterization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Review
- Aligners do shed microplastics: Evidence is clear, clinical risk is not.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Effects of microplastic release from 3D-printed orthodontic aligners: a histological and immunological bioassay approach.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Orthodontics: Functional Resins, Biomechanics, Biocompatibility, and Current Clinical Reality of Direct 3D-Printed Aligners.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- The Environmental Burden and Sustainability Challenges of Clear Aligners: Implications for Public Health, Practice, Policy, and Future Research-A Scoping Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- Microplastics and nanoplastics in clinical dentistry and orthodontics: leaching, health implications, and future directions: a narrative review.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Review
- Biocompatibility and Safety of 3D Printing Resins for Orthodontic Aligners: A Critical Review of Current Evidence.Polymers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare directly printed aligners (DPA) and thermoformed aligners (TFA), evaluating the potential release and dispersion of microplastic (MP) and nanoplastic (NP) particles under simulated oral conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsDPA samples (Graphy Tera Harz TC-85-DAC resin) and TFA samples (Invisalign® SmartTrack) were subjected to rubs in an ultrapure water bath. The liquid was collected post-friction and analyzed for MPs and NPs using various techniques: optical microscopy (OM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Also, plastic residues were quantified by weighing after drying within a laminar flow hood. Microscopic image analyses comprised the quantification of the average size of MPs and NPs, their concentration by TEM, and the roughness analysis by AFM.
resultsThe masses of MPs and NPs separated after rubbing were 0.001 g/200 µl and 0.004 g/200 µl for TFA and DPA samples, respectively. TEM analysis confirmed that DPA samples had larger (203.08 ± 2651.65 μm²) and more numerous particles compared to TFA (0.23 ± 27.53 μm²), even though it was not possible to distinguish the MPs and NPs due to clustering of the plastic residuals. AFM analysis indicated a bigger root mean square grain size for TFA than DPA; similarly, the mean roughness was lesser in the DPA sample than TFA one.
conclusionsDPA generated larger and more numerous plastic particles compared to TFA, though grain-size characterization was challenging due to particle aggregation. This suggests that the manufacturing process and materials used in DPA could impact the creation of MPs and NPs during simulated mastication, highlighting a potential area for process optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.