ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Tooth Movement and Anchorage Control in Clear Aligners versus Fixed Appliances: A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the biomechanical performance of various clear aligner models in comparison to a fixed appliance model, with a focus on tooth movement, stress distribution, and the potential risk of root resorption. Materials and Methods: A patient with a maxillary protrusion requiring first premolar extraction was selected for this study. Cone-beam computed tomography and 3D intraoral scanning were used to acquire DICOM data, which were processed into 3D models using Mimics and Geomagic Studio software. Various clear aligner models were designed (Model C1 with a palatal plate and Model C2 with a lingual retractor) and compared to a fixed appliance. Finite element analysis was performed using ABAQUS to simulate force application and analyze the displacement and stress distribution in the periodontal ligament (PDL) during anterior retraction. Results: Clear aligners exhibited higher sagittal and vertical displacements than fixed appliances, with Model C1 showing a displacement of 0.304961 mm compared to 0.022658 mm for the fixed appliance. The Von Mises stress in the clear aligners (693.733 MPa for Model C1) was significantly lower than that in the fixed appliance (68,668.1 MPa). The stress distribution in the PDL was more evenly spread across the anterior teeth in the clear aligner models, whereas the fixed appliance concentrated the stress in specific areas. Model C1, with the palatal plate, reduced PDL stress and minimized root resorption risk during anterior retraction. Conclusion: Clear aligners, particularly Model C1 with a palatal plate, offer better control over torque and vertical movement, reducing the risk of root resorption compared to other aligner models. However, clear aligners exhibit greater displacement and PDL stress than fixed appliances, which have better control over posterior retention.
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.