ArticleOdontology2026
3D analysis of incisive canal morphological changes and proximity to maxillary incisor roots following anterior tooth movement: a comparison of aligner and fixed appliance therapy.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction: a CBCT study.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
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
This study aims to assess morphological changes, the spatial relationship between the maxillary central incisor (U1) and the incisive canal (IC), and root resorption in non-extraction cases treated with either clear aligners or fixed appliances using 3D-CBCT. Two hundred eight maxillary central incisors from 104 patients underwent maxillary incisors retraction without extraction using clear aligners (n = 60) or fixed appliances (n = 44). Measurements, including IC width, root-IC distance, cortical bone width, IC height, and root resorption, were taken before (T1) and after (T2) treatment at specified heights (H1, H2, and H3; 2, 4, and 6 mm above the labial cementoenamel junction of U1). IC width increased with aligners but decreased with fixed appliances, particularly at H1. IC cortical bone width decreased at various levels, with more pronounced reductions at H1 and H3 in the fixed group. The U1 root-IC distance also decreased significantly in both groups, especially in the fixed group at H1 (0.73 ± 0.86 mm vs 0.40 ± 58 mm, P = 0.042), H2 (0.88 ± 0.94 mm vs 0.47 ± 0.78 mm, P = 0.024), and H3 (0.73 ± 0.92 mm vs 0.30 ± 0.98 mm, P = 0.008). Root-IC proximity patterns varied notably, with higher separation rates in the aligner group and greater approximation, contact, and invasion rates in the fixed group. Root resorption was more significant in the fixed group than in the aligner group (1.01 ± 0.74 mm vs 0.32 ± 0.56 mm, P < 0.001). Factors such as treatment duration, U1 movement, and U1-IC distance were identified as primary predictors of root-IC proximity changes. These results highlight the need for careful treatment planning to preserve root health and prevent IC-related risks. Clear aligners may be preferable in non-extraction cases, particularly when the upper incisor is near the IC or requires more retraction, as they could reduce root resorption while maintaining IC dimensions better than fixed appliances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439807What 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.