ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Finite element analysis of clear aligner with overhanging attachments and extended gingival coverage for interdental space closure.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Overhanging (OH) attachments were modified clear aligner (CA) attachments with an extended portion toward the root to apply force closer to the center of resistance and enable greater control over root movement, resembling power arms. This study investigated the biomechanical effects of OH attachment and partially gingival extension of CA trimline on canine movement during the closure of extraction space via finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: CBCT data of an adult with Angle Class I molar relationship and mild anterior crowding was applied for comparing the biomechanical effects of three attachment types (no attachment, vertical, OH) and four trimline designs (partially buccal/lingual gingival coverage). Periodontal ligament (PDL) hydrostatic stress, tooth displacement, rotational center position, and CA stress distribution were assessed via FEA. Results: OH attachment induced increased tooth displacement and PDL hydrostatic stress (95.5 kPa) compared to regular vertical attachment (53.1 kPa) in achieving root-controlled canine movement. OH attachment combined with a buccolingual gingival extension of CA trimline on 2-6 facilitated the most translational canine movement and lowest ratio of mesio-apical to disto-occlusal displacement (0.466, compared to 0.506 in group with no attachment and trimline extension), while simultaneously avoiding excessive aligner deformation and stress concentration. Conclusion: Overhanging attachment combined with partial gingival extension of CA trimline significantly enhanced the orthodontic force for premolar extraction cases involving space closure between canines and molars, as a more efficient and feasible design for canine bodily movement.
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.