Brand-Specific Differences in the Cytotoxicity of Clear Aligner Materials.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Catarina Nunes, Catarina Mestre, Inês P Fernandes, Maria Serra, Carlos Miguel Marto, Ana Cristina Gonçalves, Raquel Travassos, Anabela Paula, Maria Filomena Botelho, Inês Francisco, Mafalda Laranjo, Francisco Vale
{"title":"Brand-Specific Differences in the Cytotoxicity of Clear Aligner Materials.","authors":"Catarina Nunes, Catarina Mestre, Inês P Fernandes, Maria Serra, Carlos Miguel Marto, Ana Cristina Gonçalves, Raquel Travassos, Anabela Paula, Maria Filomena Botelho, Inês Francisco, Mafalda Laranjo, Francisco Vale","doi":"10.1111/ocr.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective (s): </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the cytotoxic effects of five commonly used clear aligner brands- ClearCorrect, Invisalign, Spark, SureSmile and Essix PLUS- on various cell lines in order to assess their in vitro cytotoxicity and safety.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Three cell lines- MRC-5, 3 T3-L1 and Vero- were exposed to the conditioned medium of clear aligner materials. Cytotoxicity was assessed using the MTT assay. The cell cycle, viability, types of cell death and morphological variations were evaluated using flow cytometry and optical microscopy. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed, applying appropriate tests with a significance level of 5%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Invisalign and Spark demonstrated the most significant cytotoxic effects, with marked decreases in cell viability and alterations in cell cycle distribution, particularly in Vero cells. Essix PLUS showed reduced cytotoxicity when thermoformed, suggesting that the manufacturing process may influence the material's safety profile. Morphological analysis confirmed that apoptosis and necrosis were the primary mechanisms of cell death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clear aligner materials showed varying levels of cytotoxicity, with Invisalign and Spark exhibiting the most pronounced effects, while Essix PLUS demonstrated lower cytotoxicity under certain conditions. These findings highlight the importance of material formulation and manufacturing processes in ensuring safety. Further research is needed to optimise aligner materials for both clinical efficacy and biocompatibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":19652,"journal":{"name":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.70009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective (s): This study aims to evaluate and compare the cytotoxic effects of five commonly used clear aligner brands- ClearCorrect, Invisalign, Spark, SureSmile and Essix PLUS- on various cell lines in order to assess their in vitro cytotoxicity and safety.

Materials and methods: Three cell lines- MRC-5, 3 T3-L1 and Vero- were exposed to the conditioned medium of clear aligner materials. Cytotoxicity was assessed using the MTT assay. The cell cycle, viability, types of cell death and morphological variations were evaluated using flow cytometry and optical microscopy. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed, applying appropriate tests with a significance level of 5%.

Results: Invisalign and Spark demonstrated the most significant cytotoxic effects, with marked decreases in cell viability and alterations in cell cycle distribution, particularly in Vero cells. Essix PLUS showed reduced cytotoxicity when thermoformed, suggesting that the manufacturing process may influence the material's safety profile. Morphological analysis confirmed that apoptosis and necrosis were the primary mechanisms of cell death.

Conclusion: Clear aligner materials showed varying levels of cytotoxicity, with Invisalign and Spark exhibiting the most pronounced effects, while Essix PLUS demonstrated lower cytotoxicity under certain conditions. These findings highlight the importance of material formulation and manufacturing processes in ensuring safety. Further research is needed to optimise aligner materials for both clinical efficacy and biocompatibility.

透明矫正剂材料细胞毒性的品牌特异性差异。
目的:本研究旨在评估和比较五种常用的透明矫正剂品牌(ClearCorrect, Invisalign, Spark, SureSmile和Essix PLUS)对不同细胞系的细胞毒性作用,以评估其体外细胞毒性和安全性。材料和方法:将3株细胞系MRC-5、3株T3-L1和3株Vero暴露于透明对准材料的条件培养基中。采用MTT法评估细胞毒性。采用流式细胞术和光学显微镜观察细胞周期、活力、细胞死亡类型和形态学变化。采用适当的显著性水平为5%的检验,进行描述性和推断性统计分析。结果:Invisalign和Spark表现出最显著的细胞毒性作用,细胞活力显著降低,细胞周期分布改变,尤其是在Vero细胞中。Essix PLUS在热成型时显示出较低的细胞毒性,这表明制造过程可能会影响材料的安全性。形态学分析证实细胞凋亡和坏死是细胞死亡的主要机制。结论:Clear aligner材料表现出不同程度的细胞毒性,其中Invisalign和Spark表现出最明显的效果,而Essix PLUS在某些条件下表现出较低的细胞毒性。这些发现强调了材料配方和制造过程在确保安全方面的重要性。需要进一步的研究来优化校准材料的临床疗效和生物相容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research - Genes, Growth and Development is published to serve its readers as an international forum for the presentation and critical discussion of issues pertinent to the advancement of the specialty of orthodontics and the evidence-based knowledge of craniofacial growth and development. This forum is based on scientifically supported information, but also includes minority and conflicting opinions. The objective of the journal is to facilitate effective communication between the research community and practicing clinicians. Original papers of high scientific quality that report the findings of clinical trials, clinical epidemiology, and novel therapeutic or diagnostic approaches are appropriate submissions. Similarly, we welcome papers in genetics, developmental biology, syndromology, surgery, speech and hearing, and other biomedical disciplines related to clinical orthodontics and normal and abnormal craniofacial growth and development. In addition to original and basic research, the journal publishes concise reviews, case reports of substantial value, invited essays, letters, and announcements. The journal is published quarterly. The review of submitted papers will be coordinated by the editor and members of the editorial board. It is policy to review manuscripts within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt and to publish within 3 to 6 months of acceptance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信