ArticleJournal of orthodontic science2025
Comparative evaluation of lower incisor intrusion using conventional method and frog staging protocol in clear aligners: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthodontic science, 2025. 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.
- Direct-printed aligners in orthodontics: Integrating digital design, materials science, and clinical biomechanics.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDeep bite correction with aligners involves anterior intrusion and posterior extrusion. During lower incisor intrusion with clear aligners (CAs), root disengagement from the alveolar bone can cause complications. Frog staging protocol applies sequential forces, targeting lateral incisors first, then central incisors. This study compares conventional and Frog staging intrusion protocols using attachments for mandibular anterior teeth to optimize clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 3D finite element (FE) model, including the clear aligner, periodontal ligament (PDL), and mandibular dentition, was established. Four groups were analyzed: Group 1 (Conventional intrusion with attachments), Group 2 (Conventional intrusion without attachments), Group 3 (Frog staging intrusion with attachments), and Group 4 (Frog staging intrusion without attachments). Rectangular molar attachments (4.0 × 2.0 × 0.75 mm) and vertical canine attachments (3.5 × 1.8 × 0.75 mm) provided anchorage. Incisor attachments (3.0 × 1.5 × 0.75 mm) facilitated precise force application. Stress distribution was evaluated using von Mises stress (overall stress), maximum principal stress (tensile), and minimum principal stress (compressive).
resultsFrog staging resulted in balanced stress distribution and reduced adverse effects compared to conventional intrusion. Attachments minimized stress and displacement, enhancing intrusion mechanics. Frog staging better controlled root displacement and stress concentration at the root apex.
conclusionsFrog staging intrusion with attachments is biomechanically superior for lower incisor intrusion, reducing complications and providing a safer approach for deep bite correction with CAs.
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.