The use of orthodontic aligners has increased significantly due to their convenience and esthetic advantages. However, understanding their microbiological behavior and cytotoxicity is essential. This study aimed to evaluate the metabolic activity (MA) and proliferation of different bacterial strains—assessed through colony-forming unit (CFU) counts—as well as the cytotoxicity of three widely used aligner systems: Spark, Invisalign, and Smile. Wettability and surface free energy (both dispersive and polar components) were determined using the sessile drop technique. The bacterial strains Streptococcus oralis, Actinomyces viscosus, Streptococcus gordonii, Enterococcus faecalis, and Porphyromonas gingivalis were cultured, and their behavior on the aligner surfaces was assessed under simulated oral cavity conditions in both aerobic and anaerobic environments using a bioreactor. Cytocompatibility was evaluated with HFF-1 human fibroblasts. Distinct strain-specific behaviors were observed. For Spark aligners, the contact angle was 70.5°, Invisalign 80.6°, and Smile 91.2°, and the surface free energy was 60.8, 66.7, and 74. 2 mJ/m², respectively, highlighting the high polar component of the Spark aligner of 31.9 mJ/m² compared to 19.3 and 20.2 mJ/m² for Invisalign and Smile, respectively. The Spark aligner exhibited the lowest metabolic activity for Streptococcus oralis (23.1%), Actinomyces viscosus (43.2%), Porphyromonas gingivalis (17.7%), and biofilm formation (2.4%), likely due to its higher hydrophilicity. The Smile aligner showed the lowest metabolic activity for Streptococcus gordonii (23.6%) and Enterococcus faecalis (51.1%), attributed to its low polar surface free energy component. CFU counts were minimal for all aligners and bacterial strains, including biofilm. All aligners demonstrated cytocompatibility above 70% (Spark: 71.0%, Invisalign: 75.7%, and Smile: 75.6%). These findings highlight the importance of considering aligner material properties in clinical practice and underscore the need for proper oral hygiene and aligner maintenance.

This study seeks to assess the accuracy of apical location using an augmented reality (AR) device with a free-hand method. Sixty (60) osteotomy site preparations were randomly assigned to one of two study groups: A. AR device (AR) (n = 30), and B. conventional free-hand method (FHM) (n = 30). Preoperative CBCT scans and intraoral scans were taken and uploaded to specialized implant-planning software to virtually plan preparations for the apical location osteotomy sites. The planning software was then used to automatically segment the teeth in each experimental model for their complete visualization using the AR device. A CBCT scan was carried out postoperatively after conducting the apical location procedures. The subsequent datasets were imported into therapeutic software to analyze the coronal, apical, and angular deviations. The Mann–Whitney non-parametric test was used. There were no statistically significant differences identified at the coronal (p = 0.1335), apical (p = 0.2401), and angular deviations (p = 0.4849) between the AR and FHM study groups. The augmented reality technique did not show a statistically significant accuracy of osteotomies for apical location when compared with the conventional free-hand method.