ArticleBMC oral health2025
A comparative 3D finite element analysis of mandibular advancement with clear aligners and twin block appliances.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Analysis of the efficacy of AngelAligner A6 mandibular advancer and Twin Block in the treatment of class II malocclusion in growing patients: a prospective clinical study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Temporomandibular joint changes after orthodontic treatment with clear aligners: A scoping review.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of two commonly used functional orthodontic appliances, Twin Block and Mandibular Advancement appliances with clear aligners, on dentoskeletal structures and the temporomandibular joint in individuals with Class II malocclusion using a three-dimensional finite element method.
methodsSeparate three-dimensional finite element models were created for each appliance using ANSYS SpaceClaim software (Version 22.0). The maxillomandibular complex, craniofacial sutures, TMJ structures, and dentition were modeled. 12 N force value for temporalis muscle activity during mandibular advancement was applied to simulate forward mandibular positioning in both models. Displacement and stress distribution values were analyzed in various anatomical regions, including maxillary and mandibular bones, dental arches, and TMJ components.
resultsThe Twin Block appliance produced greater displacement in mandibular incisors and resulted in increased skeletal changes, particularly in the mandibular body and condylar regions. It also caused higher stress levels in the TMJ disk and condyle compared to Mandibular Advancement appliance with clear aligners. Additionally, greater displacement was observed at craniofacial suture points in the Twin Block group.
conclusionsWhile both appliances demonstrated orthopedic and orthodontic effects beneficial for Class II correction, the Twin Block appliance exhibited stronger skeletal influence and more favorable TMJ stress patterns. The MA appliance, however, may offer more controlled dentoalveolar effects and improved patient comfort, making it a practical alternative in cases requiring esthetic and compliance-focused treatment strategies.
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.