Cytotoxicity evaluation of different clear aligner systems on human primary gingival fibroblasts: an in vitro study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.46006Keywords:
clear aligners, cytotoxicity, MTT assay, biocompatibility, human gingival fibroblastsAbstract
Background: Clear aligners, widely adopted in modern orthodontics, are designed to stay in constant contact with the oral mucosa for extended durations. Persistent concerns exist about the possible leaching of cytotoxic agents like bisphenol-A from these materials, which have heightened the need for rigorous biocompatibility evaluation. Among various assays, the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5- diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay is a reliable in vitro method, which assesses metabolic activity and cell viability, making it a gold standard for cytotoxicity screening.
Objective: The objective was to assess and contrast the potential cell-damaging effects of three different clear aligner brands – Invisalign®, Smile® Aligners, and Illusion® Aligners using the MTT assay on human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs).
Methods: Aligner pellets were immersed in normal saline for 30 days at 37°C. Eluents were diluted to 5, 10, and 20% concentrations. HGFs were exposed to these eluents for 48 hours, and cytotoxicity was assessed via MTT assay. To assess the survival rate of the cells, light absorbance was recorded at a wavelength of 570 nanometers.
Results: Invisalign® showed the highest biocompatibility (97–98% viability across concentrations), followed by Smile® Aligners (94–99%). Illusion® Aligners exhibited significant cytotoxicity (80–92% viability), with a dose-dependent decline (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Material composition critically influences cytotoxicity. Invisalign® and Smile® Aligners are a safe options, while Illusion® Aligners require further refinement for clinical safety. These results highlight the need for transparency in material composition and standardization in manufacturing protocols for all aligner systems to ensure patient safety.
Downloads
References
Boyd RL, Miller RJ, Vlaskalic V. The Invisalign system in adult orthodontics: mild crowding and space closure cases. J Clin Orthod. 2000;34(4):203–12.
Weir T. Clear aligners in orthodontic treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017;62(Suppl. 1):58–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12480
Eliades T, Pratsinis H, Athanasiou AE, Eliades G, Kletsas D. Cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of Invisalign aligners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):100–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.006
Martina S, Rongo R, Bucci R, Razionale AV, Valletta R, D’Antò V. In vitro cytotoxicity of different thermoplastic materials for clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):942–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/091718-674.1
Premaraj T, Simet S, Beatty M, Premaraj S. Oral epithelial cell reaction after exposure to Invisalign plastic material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(1):64–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.09.011
Nemec M, Bartholomaeus HM, Bertl MH, Behm C, Shokoohi-Tabrizi HA, Jonke E, et al. Behaviour of human oral epithelial cells grown on Invisalign® SmartTrack® material. Materials.
Ozkan EC, Gok GD, Ordueri NE, Elgun T. Cytotoxicity evaluation of different clear aligner materials using MTT analysis. Aust Orthod J. 2022;38(2):348–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2022-0034
Lo IL, Kao CY, Huang TH, Ho CT, Kao CT. The cytotoxicity assessment of different clear aligner materials. J Dent Sci. 2024;19(4):2065–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2024.05.025
Gruber S, Nickel A. Toxic or not toxic? The specifications of the standard ISO 10993-5 are not explicit enough to yield comparable results in the cytotoxicity assessment of an identical medical device. Front Med Technol. 2023;5:1195529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2023.1195529
Alhendi A, Khounganian R, Almudhi A. Cytotoxicity assessment of different clear aligner systems: an in vitro study. Angle Orthod. 2022;92(5):655–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/121621-919.1
Bulbule AM, Mandroli PS, Bhat KG, Bogar CM. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of Emblica officinalis (amla) on cultured human primary dental pulp fibroblasts. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019;37(3):251–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_85_18
Kumar P, Nagarajan A, Uchil PD. Analysis of cell viability by the MTT assay. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2018;2018(6):469–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot095505
Ahrari F, Tavakkol Afshari J, Poosti M, Brook A. Cytotoxicity of orthodontic bonding adhesive resins on human oral fibroblasts. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(6):688–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq019
Kotyk MW, Wiltshire WA. An investigation into bisphenol – a leaching from orthodontic materials. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(3):516–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/081413-600.1
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rituparna Pronajit Das, Parag Vishnu Gangurde, Alok Ranjan, Shashank Sharad Gaikwad, Hitesh Ramdas Sawant, Manav Karia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry is a Diamond Open Access peer-reviewed journal, publishing research in oral biomaterials science. The publishing of articles is free for authors, thanks to the support of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society (AOSS), a not-for-profit society. 
