Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 43 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Polymers

Thermomechanical Comparison of PET-G and TC-85 Orthodontic Aligner Materials

  • Melis Büşra Aşkın1
  • Serkan Görgülü2
  • Gökhan Serhat Duran3
  1. 1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yozgat Bozok University, 66100 Yozgat, Türkiye
  2. 2Department of Orthodontics, Gülhane Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Health Sciences, 06010 Ankara, Türkiye
  3. 3Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 17100 Canakkale, Türkiye
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

This study combined thermomechanical characterisation with finite element analysis to compare polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G) and Tera Harz TC-85 orthodontic aligner materials. Tensile properties were evaluated at 23, 37, 55 and 80 °C, with five observations per material and temperature. Identical full-arch geometries with a nominal thickness of 0.75 mm were subjected to 600 N compression at 300 K, heating under maintained load to 352 K and cooling to 310 K. At 23 °C, tensile moduli were 1396.4 ± 44.9 MPa for PET-G and 675.4 ± 21.2 MPa for TC-85. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) loss-tangent maxima occurred at sampled temperatures of 80 and 45 °C. Tensile and DMA moduli diverged at elevated temperatures. Initial maximum effective strains were 0.165 and 0.196, and medium-to-fine mesh changes were 1.78% and 2.61%. TC-85 showed a greater reduction in maximum strain following heating to 78.85 °C. Recovery benchmark values at 60 min were 63.3% for PET-G and 92.5% for TC-85; paired-series metrics quantified curve agreement. PET-G exhibited higher tensile stiffness, whereas TC-85 exhibited greater benchmark recovery and a larger thermal-stage strain reduction. The high-temperature endpoint represents ex vivo activation. Constitutive and experimental limitations constrain extrapolation to clinical appliance performance.

Related

  1. Bibliometric Review of Bio-Based Building Materials and a Comparison with Prior Research: Toward Probabilistic Approaches for Material Variability
    Darwish Sara, Abou Chakra Ariane, Al Bittar Tamara +1
    Clean Energy and SustainabilityPeer-reviewedCC BYFull text1 citedGeneral chemistryHAL
  2. Electrochemically driven thermomechanical energy harvesting
    Suman Hu, Evan Zhang, Shi-Hyun Seok +2
    ChemRxivPreprintLicence not statedGeneral chemistryChemRxiv
  3. Automated in situ thermomechanical analysis of cobalt under EBSD
    Inès Addi, Pierre-Antoine Dubos, Baptiste Girault +2
    Solid State PhenomenaPeer-reviewedPublisher termsFull textMaterials & polymersHAL
  4. Thermomechanical Properties of Carbon and Glass Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Composites as Function of Drilling Parameters
    Satılmış Ürgün, Sinan Fidan, Eser Yarar +2
    PolymersPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textMaterials & polymersEurope PMC
  5. Per-Layer UV Exposure-Dependent Cytotoxicity of 3D-Printed Aligner Resins and Estrogen-like Activity Screening
    Luka Šimunović, Antun Jakob Marić, Senka Meštrović
    PolymersPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textMaterials & polymersCrossrefEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{askın2026thermomechanical,
  title = {{Thermomechanical Comparison of PET-G and TC-85 Orthodontic Aligner Materials}},
  author = {Melis Büşra Aşkın and Serkan Görgülü and Gökhan Serhat Duran},
  journal = {Polymers},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/polym18202517},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/20/2517},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Thermomechanical Comparison of PET-G and TC-85 Orthodontic Aligner Materials
AU  - Melis Büşra Aşkın
AU  - Serkan Görgülü
AU  - Gökhan Serhat Duran
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - Polymers
DO  - 10.3390/polym18202517
UR  - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/20/2517
AB  - This study combined thermomechanical characterisation with finite element analysis to compare polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PET-G) and Tera Harz TC-85 orthodontic aligner materials. Tensile properties were evaluated at 23, 37, 55 and 80 °C, with five observations per material and temperature. Identical full-arch geometries with a nominal thickness of 0.75 mm were subjected to 600 N compression at 300 K, heating under maintained load to 352 K and cooling to 310 K. At 23 °C, tensile moduli were 1396.4 ± 44.9 MPa for PET-G and 675.4 ± 21.2 MPa for TC-85. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) loss-tangent maxima occurred at sampled temperatures of 80 and 45 °C. Tensile and DMA moduli diverged at elevated temperatures. Initial maximum effective strains were 0.165 and 0.196, and medium-to-fine mesh changes were 1.78% and 2.61%. TC-85 showed a greater reduction in maximum strain following heating to 78.85 °C. Recovery benchmark values at 60 min were 63.3% for PET-G and 92.5% for TC-85; paired-series metrics quantified curve agreement. PET-G exhibited higher tensile stiffness, whereas TC-85 exhibited greater benchmark recovery and a larger thermal-stage strain reduction. The high-temperature endpoint represents ex vivo activation. Constitutive and experimental limitations constrain extrapolation to clinical appliance performance.
SN  - 2073-4360
ER  -