ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Predictive Potential of Patient-Specific Biomechanical Models in Class III Protraction Therapy.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting treatment outcomes in Class III protraction therapy remains challenging. Although finite element analysis (FEA) helps in the study of biomechanics and planning of orthodontic treatment, its use in Class III protraction has mainly been in evaluating appliance designs rather than patient-specific anatomy. The predictive accuracy of FEA has not been validated in Class III protration therapy. In this study, ten patients (5 female, 5 male, aged 7-11 years) with Class III malocclusion received either facemask or mentoplate treatment. CT scans from four patients were used to construct simplified finite element models, and predictions were compared with one-year treatment outcomes from six additional patients. While stress patterns differed between treatments, patient-specific geometrical factors had a more significant impact on deformation than treatment type. FEM-predicted maxillary changes (mean: 0.352 ± 0.12 mm) were approximately one-tenth of actual changes (mean: 1.612 ± 0.64 mm), with no significant correlation. Current FEM approaches, though useful for understanding force distribution, cannot reliably predict clinical outcomes in growing Class III patients. The findings suggest that successful prediction models must incorporate biological and growth factors beyond pure biomechanics. Accurate prediction of treatment outcomes requires comprehensive models that integrate multiple biological and developmental factors.
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.