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":"透明矫正剂材料细胞毒性的品牌特异性差异。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Brand-Specific Differences in the Cytotoxicity of Clear Aligner Materials.
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.
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.