ArticleScientific reports2025
Finite element analysis of maxillary arch distalization using skeletal anchorage at three different application regions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative effects of temporary anchorage devices combined with various auxiliary attachments on maxillary molar mesialization with clear aligners: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical analysis of interradicular and infrazygomatic miniscrew anchorage during two-step and en-masse retraction: A finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Displacement Patterns in Maxillary Molar Distalization: A Comparative Finite Element Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate total maxillary arch distalization using three different skeletal anchorage systems-Mini Screw-Assisted Keleş Slider (MKS), infrazygomatic crest (IZC) screw, and maxillary tuberosity (MT) screw-through finite element analysis (FEA). A 3D cranio-maxillary model including dentition, periodontal ligament, and alveolar bone was constructed. For the MKS and IZC groups, forces were applied at three vertical heights (0 mm, 3 mm, and 6 mm apically), while the MT group involved three directional applications: buccal, palatal, and combined bucco-palatal. This design yielded nine distinct simulation scenarios. Tooth movements were assessed along the x (transverse), y (sagittal), and z (vertical) axes, and Von Mises stress distributions were analyzed in surrounding structures. In the MKS group, the first scenario showed the greatest molar crown displacement, while the third had the highest root-level movement. The ninth MT scenario yielded the most palatal crown displacement of incisors, while the sixth IZC scenario showed the greatest root movement. Apical force applications (MKS and IZC at 3-6 mm) allowed controlled displacement suited for Class II Division 2 malocclusions. In contrast, archwire-level and MT scenarios produced patterns favorable for Class II Division 1 cases. Anchorage type and force direction significantly affected distalization outcomes.
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.