What Published Research Says About Ultrasonic Cleaning of Oral Appliances
Share
Published September 19, 2026 · Voraiya LLC
We get a version of the same question almost every week: does this actually work without a cleaning tablet?
It is a fair question. Most people who wear a retainer, a set of clear aligners, a denture or a night guard have been told to soak it in something — an effervescent tablet, a chlorhexidine rinse, a denture cleanser. So when a device claims to clean using nothing but vibration and light, the reasonable reaction is skepticism.
Rather than answer it with our own marketing language, we went and read what independent researchers have published. This page is that summary, with links to every original study so you can check our reading against the source.
Two things to say up front:
None of the studies below were conducted on our device. They tested ultrasonic cleaning and UV-C as methods, usually on material samples in a laboratory. They tell you something about the underlying physics. They do not tell you how any specific consumer product performs.
We have included the findings that don't favor us. Where chemical cleaners outperformed ultrasonic cleaning, we say so. Where the evidence is thin, we say that too. A summary that only contained good news would not be worth reading.
Orthodontic acrylic: what happens with no chemicals at all
The most direct test of the "does vibration alone do anything" question comes from a 2019 study in BMC Oral Health. Researchers contaminated orthodontic acrylic sample plates with Candida albicans — a fungus that shows up routinely on removable appliances — and then compared four cleaning methods.
Ultrasonic cleaning, used with no added chemical agent whatsoever, came second out of the four methods tested. It performed ahead of both a chlorhexidine antiseptic rinse and toothbrushing. The only method that beat it was a denture cleaning tablet.
In that specific in-vitro test, the reductions the authors measured were 99.9% for ultrasonic treatment alone, 95.8% for the chlorhexidine rinse, and 89.9% for toothbrushing.
Two caveats matter here, and they matter a lot:
- These measurements were taken on flat acrylic sample plates, not on finished appliances with the grooves, undercuts and attachment points of a real retainer.
- The authors attributed the effect to mechanical cavitation — the microscopic collapse of bubbles generated by ultrasonic waves — not to any chemical action.
That second point is the interesting one. It means the cleaning came from physics, not from a detergent.
📄 Ghazal ARA, et al. "Efficacy of removing Candida albicans from orthodontic acrylic bases: an in vitro study." BMC Oral Health, 2019.
Clear aligners: vibration versus plain soaking
For aligners specifically, the most useful source is a 2022 systematic review in Healthcare, which pulled together the laboratory work on aligner cleaning and disinfection protocols.
Among the comparisons it examined, ultrasonic or sonic vibration — again, without an added detergent — removed residue more effectively than soaking an aligner in water without vibration. The review noted this difference was statistically significant.
This is worth stating plainly because "soak it in water" is what a large number of aligner wearers actually do. The research suggests that adding vibration to water changes the outcome measurably, independent of adding any chemical.
📄 Charavet C, Gourdain Z, Graveline L, Lupi L. "Cleaning and Disinfection Protocols for Clear Orthodontic Aligners: A Systematic Review." Healthcare (Basel), 2022 Feb 10. PMID: 35206954 · PMCID: PMC8871989
Retainers and dentures: where chemistry earns its place
Here the picture gets more nuanced, and it works against a purely chemical-free position.
Research in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics on household ultrasonic cleaning of retainers concluded that combining mechanical and chemical cleaning was an effective approach to removing retainer biofilm. Not mechanical alone — the combination.
A 2025 systematic review on ultrasonic cleaning and denture biofilm found a similar pattern. Across the trials it included, ultrasonic cleaning was associated with greater reductions in plaque and microbial load than the control conditions — but the ultrasonic cleaning in those trials was generally used together with something: a denture cleanser, a mouthwash, liquid soap, or in some cases distilled water.
And a 2023 study in Dental and Medical Problems tested a consumer-grade ultrasonic unit against Candida on denture material. It did find a measurable biocidal effect from the ultrasonic unit. It also found that a chemical cleaning fluid tested in the same study performed better.
We are not going to pretend that last sentence says something other than what it says. For dentures in particular, the published evidence does not support abandoning chemical cleansers.
📄 "Effectiveness of household ultrasonic cleaning with chemical agents on retainer biofilm." Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 📄 "Ultrasonic Cleaning and its Effects on Denture Biofilm: A Systematic Review." 2025. 📄 "Efficacy of MultiClean fluid and Sonic-3 ultrasonic cleaner against Candida." Dental and Medical Problems, 2023;60(4).
UV-C: a different mechanism, with a real constraint
Our device also includes UV-C light. This is not a second helping of the same thing — it works by a completely different mechanism. Ultrasonic cavitation dislodges material physically. UV-C damages the genetic material of organisms it reaches.
A systematic review of ultraviolet radiation in dental settings concluded that UV light, at sufficient dose and exposure time, can reduce bacteria, fungi and viruses on dental materials including removable dentures. A 2026 study in Materials evaluating ozonated water immersion, ultrasonic treatment and ultraviolet irradiation for removing Candida from denture material reported measurable reductions across the methods tested.
Now the constraint, which we think matters more than the headline:
UV-C only affects surfaces the light physically reaches. This is not a minor footnote. If an appliance is sitting at an angle that shadows part of its surface, or if it is coated in visible debris, the light underneath that debris is doing nothing. A UV-C cycle is not a substitute for physically removing material first.
Two practical consequences. We designed our basin to hold appliances in a fixed position rather than letting them drift, to reduce shadowing. And we tell users to rinse before and after each cycle — before, so the light has a clean surface to reach; after, to carry away whatever the cavitation loosened.
📄 "Effectiveness of Ozone Treatment, Ultrasonic Treatment, and UV Irradiation on the Removal of Candida." Materials, 2026;19(1):53.
Night guards: the evidence is genuinely thin
We want to be direct about this category because it is the one where we have the least to stand on.
Research specific to night guards and sports mouthguards is limited. One published study comparing cleaning methods on mouthguard material found that a dedicated antimicrobial mouthguard solution outperformed ultrasonic cleaning alone against oral bacteria.
So for night guards, we position ultrasonic cleaning as what the evidence supports it as: a method for loosening and removing surface debris. If you wear a night guard, we would recommend using it alongside regular rinsing and, where your dentist thinks it appropriate, an antimicrobial solution — not instead of them.
What this evidence does not establish
It would be easy to stop at the favorable findings. A few limits that apply across everything above:
Most of it is in-vitro. These are material samples in controlled laboratory conditions, not appliances worn in a mouth for months. Real appliances accumulate biofilm differently, sit in saliva, and have geometry that sample plates don't.
Several sample sizes are small. Individual studies with small samples can produce results that don't replicate. The systematic reviews are more reliable than any single study, which is why we've leaned on them where they exist.
Chemical cleansers can win. Comparative reviews have found that chemical denture cleansers demonstrate stronger antifungal effects than non-chemical methods under some test conditions. That is a real finding and we are not going to bury it.
None of this tests our product. We will say it a third time because it is the most important sentence on this page. Every study here evaluates a method. Whether a given device delivers the frequency, power and exposure that those methods require is a separate question — one that requires testing the device itself.
📄 "A Comparison of the Efficacy of Non-chemical versus Chemical Denture Cleansers: A Systematic Review." J Explor Res Pharmacol, 2025.
What we are doing about the gap
The obvious objection to this entire page is: fine, the physics works, but does your device do it?
That is the right objection, and we cannot answer it with literature. We plan to commission independent material-safety testing on our device and will publish the results here when we have them — including any findings that are inconvenient for us.
Until then, the honest position is this: the mechanism is documented in peer-reviewed research, and our product is built around that mechanism. That is a reason to take it seriously. It is not proof, and we are not going to describe it as proof.
Full reference list
- Ghazal ARA, et al. "Efficacy of removing Candida albicans from orthodontic acrylic bases: an in vitro study." BMC Oral Health, 2019.
- Charavet C, Gourdain Z, Graveline L, Lupi L. "Cleaning and Disinfection Protocols for Clear Orthodontic Aligners: A Systematic Review." Healthcare (Basel), 2022; PMID 35206954, PMCID PMC8871989.
- "Effects of cleaning methods on the removal efficacy of Streptococcus biofilm." BMC Oral Health.
- "Effectiveness of household ultrasonic cleaning with chemical agents on retainer biofilm." Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
- "Ultrasonic Cleaning and its Effects on Denture Biofilm: A Systematic Review." 2025.
- "Efficacy of MultiClean fluid and Sonic-3 ultrasonic cleaner against Candida." Dental and Medical Problems, 2023;60(4).
- "Effectiveness of Ozone Treatment, Ultrasonic Treatment, and UV Irradiation on the Removal of Candida." Materials, 2026;19(1):53.
- "A Comparison of the Efficacy of Non-chemical versus Chemical Denture Cleansers: A Systematic Review." J Explor Res Pharmacol, 2025.
This page summarizes third-party published research on ultrasonic and UV-C cleaning methods. It is not medical advice and does not describe the tested performance of any Voraiya product. Follow your dentist's or orthodontist's instructions for your specific appliance.
Questions about this summary: service@voraiya.com
Voraiya LLC · 5900 Balcones Drive, Ste 100, Austin, TX 78731, United States
