ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
Three-dimensional CBCT analysis of bone remodeling, root resorption, and incisive canal morphology during miniscrew-assisted aligner-based incisor retraction with and without extractions.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate three-dimensional changes in incisive canal (IC) morphology, root-canal proximity, and root resorption following maxillary incisor (U1) retraction with clear aligners, comparing extraction and non-extraction treatment protocols. Materials and methods: A total of 100 patients (200 U1) treated with clear aligners were retrospectively analyzed using CBCT before and after treatment. The extraction group included 40 patients and the non-extraction group 60. Linear measurements of IC width, root-canal distance, cortical bone width (CBW), IC height, and root length/width were obtained at three levels above the labial cementoenamel junction (H1-H3: 2, 4, and 6 mm). Volumetric and surface area analyses of the IC and U1 were performed to evaluate morphological and structural remodeling. Group differences and predictive factors for root resorption and canal contact/invasion were assessed statistically. Results: Extraction-based retraction produced significantly greater reductions in canal width, CBW, and root-canal distance, with increased apical root resorption, most notably in patients who underwent substantial anterior retraction (all Conclusion: Extraction-based aligner retraction elicits greater osseous remodeling around the incisive canal and increased root resorption, particularly in cases requiring substantial anterior retraction, reflecting a coupled bone-tooth adaptive response to orthodontic loading. These findings highlight the dynamic nature of craniofacial bone physiology and emphasize the need for biologically guided treatment planning to minimize tissue stress and iatrogenic effects.
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.