Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of directly 3D-printed clear aligner materials

Objectives: This study comparatively evaluated the mechanical properties of four commercially available, directly three-dimensional (3D) printed clear aligner materials by analyzing tensile behavior, flexural properties, and surface hardness. Material and Methods: Four direct-print clear aligner resins were included: Custom resin solutions (CRS), LuxCreo, Rayform 4D clear aligner resin, and PowerResins clear smile resin. Specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturers’ protocols with a standardized thickness of 0.70 mm and 50 µm layer thickness in vertical orientation. Tensile ( n = 5), three-point bending ( n = 5), and Shore D hardness ( n = 10) tests were performed at room temperature (23°C) at the accredited laboratories of TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons test ( p < 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found among all materials for all tested parameters ( p < 0.0001). PowerResins showed the highest elastic modulus (2187.7 ± 315.8 MPa), tensile strength (51.5 ± 2.9 MPa), flexural modulus (1609.7 ± 95.6 MPa), flexural strength (71.9 ± 2.9 MPa), and Shore D hardness (87.3 ± 0.9), indicating superior rigidity. LuxCreo demonstrated the highest elongation at break (118.4 ± 10.7%), suggesting greater flexibility and ductility. Rayform 4D showed intermediate mechanical behavior, whereas CRS generally exhibited lower flexural resistance. Conclusion: Directly printed clear aligner materials exhibit significant variability in mechanical properties. PowerResins may be more suitable for cases requiring greater rigidity and force delivery, whereas LuxCreo may be preferable when flexibility and patient comfort are prioritized. Material selection should be based on specific orthodontic treatment objectives and clinical biomechanical requirements.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
APOS Trends in Orthodontics
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_133_2026
Primary Topic
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of directly 3D-printed clear aligner materials

Nida Tutka, Betul Gulhan Cakir, Ahmet Murat Artuc
APOS Trends in Orthodontics
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
article

Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of directly 3D-printed clear aligner materials

Nida Tutka, Betul Gulhan Cakir, Ahmet Murat Artuc
article en

Abstract

Objectives: This study comparatively evaluated the mechanical properties of four commercially available, directly three-dimensional (3D) printed clear aligner materials by analyzing tensile behavior, flexural properties, and surface hardness. Material and Methods: Four direct-print clear aligner resins were included: Custom resin solutions (CRS), LuxCreo, Rayform 4D clear aligner resin, and PowerResins clear smile resin. Specimens were fabricated according to the manufacturers’ protocols with a standardized thickness of 0.70 mm and 50 µm layer thickness in vertical orientation. Tensile ( n = 5), three-point bending ( n = 5), and Shore D hardness ( n = 10) tests were performed at room temperature (23°C) at the accredited laboratories of TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons test ( p < 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found among all materials for all tested parameters ( p < 0.0001). PowerResins showed the highest elastic modulus (2187.7 ± 315.8 MPa), tensile strength (51.5 ± 2.9 MPa), flexural modulus (1609.7 ± 95.6 MPa), flexural strength (71.9 ± 2.9 MPa), and Shore D hardness (87.3 ± 0.9), indicating superior rigidity. LuxCreo demonstrated the highest elongation at break (118.4 ± 10.7%), suggesting greater flexibility and ductility. Rayform 4D showed intermediate mechanical behavior, whereas CRS generally exhibited lower flexural resistance. Conclusion: Directly printed clear aligner materials exhibit significant variability in mechanical properties. PowerResins may be more suitable for cases requiring greater rigidity and force delivery, whereas LuxCreo may be preferable when flexibility and patient comfort are prioritized. Material selection should be based on specific orthodontic treatment objectives and clinical biomechanical requirements.

APOS Trends in OrthodonticsVol. 0
Istanbul Aydın University (TR)
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.