## 4 Discussion  
The use of 3D-printed aligners and retainers is expected to replace traditional vacuum-formed ones due to their superior mechanical strength qualities. 3D-printed retainers offer increased accuracy and reliability compared to vacuum-formed retainers [6]. It is important to note that differences in the thickness of the samples can affect their elastic and strength properties. For example, specimens with the largest thickness (1.2 mm) exhibit the highest average flexural modulus, deformation, creep, and strength. On the other hand, samples with an average thickness of 1 mm have the lowest modulus of elasticity [20]. In addition to their mechanical properties, 3D-printed retainers provide several advantages, including a simplified laboratory protocol, time and cost savings, and precise design [19]. While 3D-printed retainers may show a larger deviation from the original reference models compared to conventional vacuum-molded retainers, they still provide measurements within 0.5 mm, which is considered clinically sufficient [21]. Modern methods of remote monitoring systems, such as dental monitoring, have also been implemented in standard orthodontic care. These systems allow for the tracking and control of the fit of the retainer and the oral hygiene of the patients [22; 23]. Studies have shown that dental monitoring can significantly reduce the number of in-office visits by 1.68-3.5 visits and may contribute to improved aligner fit [24]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Zone** & **Sex** &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Median** \\ **(Q1–Q3)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\mathbf{U}\) & \(\mathbf{p}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Right Distal**} & \multirow{3}{*}{male} & 36.70 & \multirow{3}{*}{44.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.468} \\  & & 38.15 & & \\  & & (35.55–39.60) & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Right Frontal**} & \multirow{3}{*}{male} & 11.60 & \multirow{3}{*}{50.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.756} \\  & & (10.34–12.71) & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 12.35 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & (9.95–12.80) & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Left Frontal**} & \multirow{3}{*}{male} & 11.88 & \multirow{3}{*}{50.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.756} \\  & & (10.25–12.85) & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 11.60 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & (10.60–12.20) & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Left Distal Zone**} & \multirow{3}{*}{male} & 41.00 & \multirow{3}{*}{45.00} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.512} \\  & & (37.10–42.55) & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 39.20 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & (37.80–42.35) & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Force distribution by sex. In [PERSON]'s study on the mechanical characteristics of different materials, several dependencies were observed. BioMed Amber was found to be the most stable material in the compression test, showing minimal changes in its structure. On the other hand, IBT exhibited the lowest stability, indicating that it may be more suitable for the preparation of imprecise medical elements or auxiliary tools. Dental LT Clear, on the other hand, did not show any changes in texture after the compression test [25]. In a comparative study on BioMed Amber and Dental LT Clear, it was found that both materials are rigid and stable in properties. However, BioMed Amber demonstrated higher resistance to compression, while Dental LT Clear exhibited higher resistance to tensile forces [26]. The mechanical properties of 3D-printed occlusal splints are influenced by factors such as the method of post-curing, water storage, and thickness of the printing layer. Post-curing with a combination of heat and light can improve the mechanical properties and conversion rate of 3D-printed occlusal splints. Decreasing the thickness of the printing layer can increase flexural strength and surface hardness [27]. Furthermore, the printing angle of 3D-printed occlusal splint materials affects their polishability and surface hardness. Materials printed at 0\({}^{\circ}\) angle produce the highest gloss and lowest surface roughness, requiring no additional polishing.