ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Biocompatibility of Direct 3D-Printed Clear Aligner Resins: A Comparative In Vitro Cytotoxicity Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
Background: This study comparatively evaluated the mechanical properties of four commercially available, directly three-dimensional (3D) printed clear aligner materials by analyzing tensile behavior, flexural properties, and surface hardness. Materials and Methods: Four direct-print clear aligner resins were included: CRS, LuxCreo, Rayform 4D clear aliner resin, and PowerResins clear smile resin. Specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturers' protocols with a standardized thickness of 0.70 mm and 50 m layer thickness in vertical orientation. Tensile (n = 5), three-point bending (n = 5), and Shore D hardness (n = 10) tests were performed at room temperature (23°C) at the accredited laboratories of TÜBTAK Marmara Research Center. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Sidak's multiple comparisons test (p < 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found among all materials for all tested parameters (p < 0.0001). PowerResins showed the highest elastic modulus (2187.7 ± 315.8 megapascals [MPa]), tensile strength (51.5 ± 2.9 MPa), flexural modulus (1609.7 ± 95.6 MPa), flexural strength (71.9 ± 2.9 MPa), and Shore D hardness (87.3 ± 0.9), indicating superior rigidity. LuxCreo demonstrated the highest elongation at break (118.4 ± 10.7%), suggesting greater flexibility and ductility. Rayform 4D showed intermediate mechanical behavior, whereas CRS generally exhibited lower flexural resistance. Conclusions: Directly printed clear aligner materials exhibit significant variability in mechanical properties. PowerResins may be more suitable for cases requiring greater rigidity and force delivery, whereas LuxCreo may be preferable when flexibility and patient comfort are prioritized. Material selection should be based on specific orthodontic treatment objectives and clinical biomechanical requirements.
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.