ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Efficacy of SAVE: A Novel Maxillary Protraction Device-A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study describes a novel device known as "SAVE" to effectively protract the deficient maxilla in class III malocclusion by quantifying and evaluating the changes in the maxilla through a finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and methods: The patented novel SAVE device was three-dimensionally modeled using Autodesk Fusion 360. An existing computed tomography (CT) scan of a patient exhibiting class III malocclusion was used to generate a finite element (FE) model. The total number of nodes was 8,49,682 and 5,30,716 elements. The material of choice for the appliance was medical-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK) polymer. The loading was performed to simulate maxillary protraction (after assigning material properties). The loading forces of 3.5, 5.5, and 9 N were simulated on each side with 30° angulations to the occlusal plane. The color changes in terms of areas of maximum (red) and minimum (blue) deformation. Results: The FEA results with protraction forces of 3.5, 5.5, and 9 N showed deformation of the maxilla in the forward and downward directions. Equivalent von Mises stress on the SAVE appliance showed stress on the superior surface of the main frame and on the area below the struts where the force module was attached. In relation to the implant, the stress concentration was on the posterior and superior area around the implant. Conclusion: The FEM analysis force vectors showed a forward and downward deformation of the maxilla with counterclockwise rotation, supporting the fact that the novel appliance could bring about effective maxillary protraction in a shorter duration. How to cite this article: Shetty S, T NB, Amin V,
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.