Objective: To perform a systematic review (SR) of existing literature and a patent landscape report (PLR) regarding the potential applications of shape-memory polymers (SMPs) in dentistry. Search strategy: Clinical and Biomedical online databases (Pubmed, Medline via Embase, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library), Materials Science and Engineering databases (IEEE Explore, Compendex, Proquest), Material Science and Chemical database (Reaxys) so as Patents databases (Questel-Orbit, Espacenet, Patentscope) were consulted as recently as January 2019 to identify all papers and patents potentially relevant to the review. The reference lists of all eligible studies were hand searched for additional published work. Results: After duplicate selection and extraction procedures, 6 relevant full-text articles from the initial 302 and 45 relevant patents from 497 were selected. A modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist of 14 items for reporting pre-clinical in-vitro studies was used to rate the methodological quality of the selected papers. The overall quality was judged low. Conclusions: Despite the great potential and versatility of SMPs, it was not possible to draw evidence-based conclusions supporting their immediate employment in clinical dentistry. This was due to the weak design and a limited number of studies included within this review and reflects the fact that additional research is mandatory to determine whether or not the use of SMPs in dentistry could be effective. Nevertheless, the qualitative analysis of selected papers and patents indicate that SMPs are promising materials in dentistry because of their programmable physical properties. These findings suggest the importance of furtherly pursuing this line of research.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Invisalign First Phase I treatment compared with tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in mixed dentition patients by examining changes in palatal volume, palatal surface area, and maxillary interdental transverse measurements. In this open-label, 2-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial, patients with a posterior transverse discrepancy ≤6 mm were allocated into the clear aligner therapy (CAT) group (Invisalign First Phase I treatment) and RME group (tooth-borne RME) according to a computer-generated randomization list immediately before the start of treatment. Digital models were obtained before the beginning of the treatment (T0) and at the end of the retention period/treatment (T1) using an intraoral scanner. Palatal volume was measured as the primary outcome, and palatal surface area and intermolar and intercanine transverse widths at the cusps and gingival level were measured as secondary outcomes. Patients and interventionists were not blinded because of the nature of the intervention. Out of 50 patients, 41 (19 males and 22 females; mean age, 8.12 ± 1.53 years) were enrolled and divided into 2 groups: 20 in the CAT group and 21 in the RME group. Two participants did not receive the allocated intervention for different reasons (1 patient discontinued the intervention in the CAT group, and another patient was lost to follow-up in the RME group). Thus, 19 patients (5 males and 14 females; mean age, 8.48 ± 1.42 years) were analyzed from the CAT group, and 20 patients (12 males and 8 females; mean age, 7.83 ± 1.19 years) from the RME group. Regarding intragroup comparisons, all outcome measures significantly increased from T0 to T1 in both groups. In terms of intergroup comparisons, there were no significant differences in the variation (Δ) of outcome measures between the 2 groups from T0 to T1, except for the intermolar width at the gingival level (P <0.005). The change in palatal volume was 532.01 ±540.52 mm³ for the RME group and 243.95 ± 473.24 mm³ for the CAT group (P = 0.310), with a moderate effect size (d = ∼1.136). RME exhibited superior results compared with the Invisalign First Phase I treatment, considering all the assessed outcome measures. The only parameter that showed statistically significant differences between the 2 groups was variation in intermolar width at the gingival level, suggesting the occurrence of buccal tipping in patients undergoing Invisalign First Phase I treatment. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (no. NCT04760535).

Background: This systematic review aims to analyze the spontaneous dentoalveolar changes in the mandibular arch after maxillary expansion in growing patients obtained with different expansion protocols: Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME), Slow Maxillary Expansion (SME), and Leaf Expander. Methods: The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligibility criteria were established in the PICO format, involving patients who underwent slow, rapid, or leaf maxillary expansion during the mixed or early permanent dentitions. A comprehensive search of electronic databases and manual searches was conducted up to December 2023. The outcome measures included inter-mandibular first permanent molar width, inter-deciduous molar and canine width, arch perimeter, and arch length; both short- and long-term results were considered. The articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in this systematic review and were qualitatively evaluated using a methodological quality scoring system with a 13-point scale. To assess the inter-examiner agreement concerning the article selection and the qualitative assessment of the included studies, Kappa statistics were computed. Results: A total of 1184 articles were identified through electronic and manual searches. After the removal of duplicates and the initial examination of the titles and abstracts, 57 articles were considered for the full text analysis, and according to the eligibility and exclusion criteria, 22 studies were finally selected, composed of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective/case-control studies. The qualitative assessment of the included studies showed the following scores: 6 papers have high research quality, 5 have moderate quality, and 11 have low quality. SME demonstrated negligible mandibular changes, with less than 1 mm variation on average (range 0.46–2.00 mm) in the selected parameters and relapses observed in the long term. RME induced more significant increases, particularly in intermolar width greater than 1 mm, which ranged between 0.93 and 3.3 mm, and good stability over the long term. Leaf Expander exhibited promising short-term lower intermolar width increases greater than 1 mm and ranged from 0.5 to 1.69 mm, but long-term stability was not thoroughly evaluated. Conclusions: SME results in negligible short- and long-term effects, while RME, especially with Haas-type appliances, exhibits significant intermolar width increases that remain stable over the years. Leaf Expander shows short-term lower intermolar width increases, requiring further investigation into long-term stability.

(1) Background: This study aims to investigate, within a controlled laboratory environment, the magnitude of the transversal load and the force decay over time produced by clear aligners in comparison to a Rapid Palatal Expander (RPE). (2) Methods: Resin models of a dental maxillary arch, additively manufactured from an intraoral scan, were inserted in a testing machine with uniaxial load cells to measure the force trend over time expressed by RPE and clear aligners. The mechanical load was recorded during a certain timeframe for both appliances. (3) Results: The force expressed by the RPE ranged from 30 to 50 N for each activation, decreasing with a nonlinear pattern over time. The force expressed by the clear aligner ranged from 3 to 5 N, decreasing with a linear pattern over time. In contrast, the force generated by the clear aligner fell within the range of 3 to 5 N, showing a linear reduction in force magnitude over the observed period of time. (4) Conclusions: The RPE exerted a force magnitude approximately ten times greater than that generated by clear aligners. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that the oral environment can significantly influence these results. These limitations underscore the need for caution when applying these findings to clinical settings.

Alessandro Bruni, Vittorio Gallo, Simone Parrini, Georgios Litsas, Giovanni Cugliari, Tommaso Castroflorio, Andrea Piero Deregibus. Korean J Orthod 2025;55:85-94. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod24.082