ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2026
Distal Upper Molar Force Distribution With Clear Aligners Using Different Anterior Teeth Anchorage Setups: A Finite Element Study.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe notion that clear aligners alone can distalize upper molars without affecting anterior teeth is inaccurate. Although strategies such as Class II elastics, tooth-movement sequencing, and attachment variations have been investigated to mitigate unwanted side effects, temporary anchorage devices have demonstrated potential for maintaining anchorage during molar distalization. This study used Finite Element Analysis to evaluate different setups for distalizing one or both upper molars, comparing passive anchorage (ligature tie) and active anchorage (1.66 N), and assessing the presence of vertical attachments. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix models were generated with 0.2 mm distal activation for molar distalization. These models varied by premolar/M attachments and anchorage type-active (1.66 N) or passive-applied from extra-alveolar screws to canine buttons.
resultsAll setups distalized the second molars, but passive anchorage demonstrated greater efficiency and fewer side effects. Passive systems achieved over 90% distalization-to-anchorage loss ratios, compared with 65% with active forces. Passive setups also minimised unintended anterior movement and enabled distal canine movement following molars-an advantageous outcome. Vertical attachments had minimal impact. X-axis (midline) movement predominantly affected canines, particularly with active anchorage. Anterior intrusion on the Z-axis was reduced with passive systems.
conclusionActive anchorage forces may deform aligners and compromise control, whereas passive anchorage-similar to a ligature wire applied to anterior teeth-supports planned movement without disrupting biomechanics.
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.