ArticleDentistry journal2024
Trabecular Bone Component Assessment under Orthodontic Loads and Movements during Periodontal Breakdown-A Finite Elements Analysis.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This numerical analysis, by employing Tresca and Von Mises failure criteria, assessed the biomechanical behavior of a trabecular bone component subjected to 0.6, 1.2, and 2.4 N orthodontic forces under five movements (intrusion, extrusion, tipping, rotation, and translation) and during a gradual horizontal periodontal breakdown (0-8 mm). Additionally, they assessed the changes produced by bone loss, and the ischemic and resorptive risks. The analysis employed eighty-one models of nine patients in 405 simulations. Both failure criteria showed similar qualitative results, with Tresca being quantitatively higher by 1.09-1.21. No qualitative differences were seen between the three orthodontic loads. Quantitatively, a doubling (1.2 N) and quadrupling (2.4 N) were visible when compared to 0.6 N. Rotation and translation followed by tipping are the most stressful, especially for a reduced periodontium, prone to higher ischemic and resorptive risks. In an intact periodontium, 1.2 N can be safely applied but only in a reduced periodontium for extrusion and intrusion. More than 0.6 N is prone to increasing ischemic and resorptive risks for the other three movements. In an intact periodontium, stress spreads in the entire trabecular structure. In a reduced periodontium, stress concentrates (after a 4 mm loss-marker for the stress change distribution) and increases around the cervical third of the remaining alveolar socket.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.