ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of four traction scenarios on a labially impacted dilacerated maxillary central incisor: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the stress distribution in the dentoalveolar structures of a labially impacted dilacerated maxillary central incisor during orthodontic traction, considering different positions of the traction button on the tooth's crown through finite element analysis (FEA). MATERIALS AND
methodsFour three-dimensional (3D)finite element models (FEM) were created to simulate the maxilla of a 9-year-old female patient, featuring a left labially impacted dilacerated maxillary central incisor with the only variation being the position of the orthodontic traction button: at the incisal third of the labial surface (Model A), at the incisal third of the palatal surface (Model B), at the middle third of the palatal surface (Model C), and the cervical third of the palatal surface (Model D). Material parameters, grids, boundary conditions, coordinate systems, and load conditions were set in Ansys to establish the FEM for traction of the impacted incisor. A 100 g total traction force was applied between the button and a 0.016 × 0.022-inch stainless steel archwire in the direction perpendicular to the impacted tooth's crown. The initial tooth displacements, biomechanical stress at the root apex, alveolar bone von Mises stress, and hydrostatic stress of the periodontal ligament (PDL) under the four conditions were analyzed and compared.
resultsThe impact of traction button positioning on tooth displacement, stress distribution, and bone loading was assessed in four models. Model B demonstrated the highest labiopalatal and vertical displacement. The stress concentrations in the impacted tooth's root were highest in model B, particularly in the cervical region labially, while model D showed the lowest root stress. Maximum stress in the alveolar bone was also observed in models A and B, particularly on the palatal surface near the cervical region. Hydrostatic stress in the periodontal ligament was highest in model B and lowest in model D.
conclusionThe traction button positioned on the incisal third of the labial or palatal surface facilitates significant tooth movement. Still, it carries a higher risk of periodontal ligament damage, root and alveolar bone resorption. In contrast, the traction button positioned on the cervical third of the palatal surface, while less effective for movement, generates the least stress.
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.