Objective: The objective of this study was to measure the forces and moments exerted by direct printed aligners (DPAs) with varying facial and lingual aligner surface thicknesses, in all three planes of space, during lingual movement of a maxillary central incisor. Materials and methods: An in vitro experimental setup was used to quantify forces and moments experienced by a programmed tooth to be moved and by adjacent anchor teeth, during lingual movement of a maxillary central incisor. DPAs were directly 3D-printed with Tera Harz TC-85 (Graphy Inc., Seoul, South Korea) clear photocurable resin in 100-µm layers. Three multi-axis sensors were used to measure the moments and forces generated by 0.50 mm thick DPAs modified with labial and lingual surface thicknesses of 1.00 mm in selective locations. The sensors were connected to three maxillary incisors (the upper left central, the upper right central, and the upper left lateral incisors) during 0.50 mm of programmed lingual bodily movement of the upper left central incisor. Moment-to-force ratios were calculated for all three incisors. Aligners were benchtop tested in a temperature-controlled chamber at intra-oral temperature to simulate intra-oral conditions. Results: The results showed that increased facial thickness of DPAs slightly reduced force levels on the upper left central incisor compared to DPAs of uniform thickness of 0.50 mm. Additionally, increasing the lingual thickness of adjacent teeth reduced force and moment side effects on the adjacent teeth. DPAs can produce moment-to-force ratios indicative of controlled tipping. Conclusions: Targeted increases in thickness of direct 3D-printed aligners change the magnitude of forces and moments generated, albeit in complex patterns that are difficult to predict. The ability to vary labiolingual thicknesses of DPAs is promising to optimize the prescribed orthodontic movements while minimizing unwanted tooth movements, thereby increasing the predictability of tooth movements.

Objective: To assess the possibility of extrusion of a maxillary central incisor with the use of buccal and lingual pressure columns in the absence of attachments, and to evaluate the forces and moments experienced by the teeth using both thermoformed and 3D-printed clear aligners. Materials and methods: A three-axis force and moment sensor (Aidin Robotics, Anyang, South Korea) was used to measure the forces and moments during extrusion of an upper left central incisor (UL1) and any forces experienced by the upper right central incisor (UR1) using thermoformed aligners and 3D-printed aligners. For the thermoformed aligners, the materials used were ATMOS® (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI) and Zendura FLX® (Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA). 3D-printed aligners were fabricated using TC-85 clear photocurable resin (Graphy Inc., Seoul, South Korea). For each material type, three conditions were tested: Group 1: No attachment or pressure columns (control); Group 2: Attachment only; and Group 3: Pressure columns only. Each group was planned for 0.5 mm of extrusion on the UL1. Results: All force readings collected demonstrated statistically significant differences when compared by materials and when compared by groups, with a P value of < 0.001. In the absence of attachment or pressure columns (Group 1), ATMOS® and TC-85 groups exerted extrusive force on the UL1. However, significantly lower forces and moments were exerted by the TC-85 group in comparison to the ATMOS® and Zendura FLX® groups. In the presence of attachment (Group 2), all three ATMOS®, Zendura FLX® and TC-85 groups exerted extrusive force on the UL1, with the TA group showing different directions of faciolingual force, mesiodistal force and faciolingual inclination on the UR1 when compared to the other two thermoformed groups. Whereas in the presence of pressure columns (Group 3), only the TC-85 3D-printed aligner group exerted extrusive force. Thermoformed aligners generated significantly higher mean forces and moments than 3D-printed aligners. Significant levels of unintended forces and moments were present in all groups. Conclusions: Force levels generated during extrusion with clear aligners are significantly lower with those 3D-printed using TC-85 than with those thermoformed using ATMOS® or Zendura FLX®. Attachments consistently generated extrusive forces, and may be an effective adjunct in achieving extrusion of incisors. Extrusion may be achieved without the use of attachments by utilizing pressure columns in 3D-printed aligners using TC-85. While different strategies can generate extrusive forces, there are significant unintended forces and moments.

The aim of this study was to compare the forces and moments exerted by thermoformed aligners (TFMs) and direct printed aligners (DPAs) on the maxillary left central incisor (21) and adjacent teeth (11, 22) during lingual bodily movement of tooth 21. Methods: An in vitro setup was used to quantify forces and moments on three incisors, which were segmented and fixed onto multi-axis force/moment transducers. TFM were fabricated using 0.76 mm-thick single-layer PET-G foils (ATMOS; American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) and multi-layer TPU foils (Zendura FLX; Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA, USA). DPAs were fabricated using TC-85 photopolymer resin (Graphy Inc., Seoul, Republic of Korea). Tooth 21 was planned for bodily displacement by 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm, and six force and moment components were measured on it and the adjacent teeth. Results: TC-85 generated lower forces and moments with fewer unintended forces and moments on the three teeth. TC-85 exerted 0.99 N and 1.53 N of mean lingual force on tooth 21 for 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm activations, respectively; ATMOS produced 3.82 N and 7.70 N, and Zendura FLX produced 3.00 N and 8.23 N of mean lingual force for the same activations, respectively. Bodily movement could not be achieved. Conclusions: The force systems generated by clear aligners are complex and unpredictable. DPA using TC-85 produced lower, more physiological force levels with fewer side effects, which may increase the predictability of tooth movement and enhance treatment outcome. The force levels generated by TFM were considered excessive and not physiologically compatible.