(1) Background: Clear aligners are favored for their aesthetics in orthodontics, with newer 3D-printed technologies allowing the design of aligners with differential thicknesses and materials, offering advantages in terms of force distribution on the teeth, thereby optimizing treatment biomechanics. This study aimed to compare the initial and final forces of three types of 3D-printed aligners (with different thickness gradients and gingival margins) and traditional thermoformed aligners (with different gingival margins), evaluating stress relaxation and force consistency to determine which material and configuration may be optimal for better force distribution; (2) Methods: Twenty-seven 3D-printed aligners with three design variations and 18 thermoformed aligners were analyzed. Customized models were used to assess force at specific points on the upper incisor (1.1) and molar (2.6). A 3 h stress-relaxation test was conducted at 37 °C, and force data were recorded every second using a motorized compression stand. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, post hoc tests, and Kruskal–Wallis tests for comparisons; (3) Results and Conclusions: Aligners with vertical and horizontal thickness gradients and a gingival margin trimmed 2 mm above the gingival contour exerted the highest forces, particularly at incisal/occlusal points. No significant differences in stress relaxation were observed. The force applied to the molars was consistently higher than the force applied to the incisors. These 3D-printed aligners with both horizontal and vertical gradients may offer a viable alternative to thermoformed aligners.

The aim was to objectively assess compliance in patients prescribed headgear and evaluate the impact of monitoring awareness, treatment duration, gender, and age on compliance levels. A total of 22 patients with Class II malocclusion wore the headgear integrated with the force and temperature sensitive Smartgear monitoring system (Smartgear, Swissorthodontics AG, Cham, Switzerland). Patients were instructed to wear the headgear for 13 h daily over a 3-month period. Randomly, 11 patients were informed that they monitored and 11 were not informed. Data were organized using Microsoft Excel and analyzed using R for statistical estimates, graphs, and hypothesis testing. Smartgear recorded an average daily compliance of 6.7 h. No statistically significant differences were found in cooperation between study group and control group over the 3 months of treatment, regardless of gender and age. However, there was slight greater cooperation in the first month than in the other months, and patients ≤10 years of age had almost 2 h more cooperation than their older counterparts. Moreover, the informed group exhibited an average of 1.1 more hours of cooperation per day than the uninformed group, which may carry clinical significance. This cooperation primarily occurred at night and was found to be statistically significant. Compliance among young patients typically remained lower than the prescribed level, regardless of their gender and psychological maturity. Although an awareness of monitoring does not seem to improve compliance, implementing such systems could still offer dentists a valuable means of obtaining objective information about their patients’ adherence.