ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating chemical and surface stability of thermoformed and 3D-printed clear aligners after intraoral exposure.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printable Aligner Resins: An In Vitro Study with FTIR Chemical Characterization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlign Technology, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of orthodontic aligners, using SmartTrackTM (LD30), a multilayer aromatic thermoplastic polyurethane/copolyester, and the vacuum thermoforming process. Recently, direct 3D printing using Tera Harz TC-85 DAC resin has also been explored for the production of aligners. Both aligner materials are exposed to physical and chemical aging in the oral cavity. This study evaluates the chemical aging of these materials after 7 and 14 days of exposure to the oral environment, using Optical Microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and X-ray diffraction (XRD). MATERIALS AND
methodsInvisalign® aligners (SmartTrackTM LD30) and 3D printed aligners (Tera Harz TC-85 DAC) were worn by 20 patients for 7 (t1) and 14 days (t2). The aligners were characterized initially (t0) using Optical Microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, XRF, and XRD. After t1 and t2, each aligner was reanalyzed at three locations: right and left first molars (p1 and p2), and central incisor (p3). The results were compared with never-worn aligners (t0, n = 3).
resultsBoth materials showed high homogeneity across all locations (p1, p2, p3) and time points, indicating uniform performance after oral exposure. PCA analysis performed on Raman spectra revealed no significant chemical changes in the surface composition after 7-14 days of use. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe results demonstrated that exposure to the oral environment for up to 14 days did not significantly alter the surface chemistry of either aligner material. These findings are consistent with recent literature, suggesting that short-term intra-oral exposure does not affect aligner materials' chemical stability.
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.