ArticleProgress in orthodontics2026
Biomechanical effects of attachment position and pressure ridge design on maxillary arch expansion with clear aligners: a finite element analysis.
Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of different aligner thicknesses and expansion step sizes on maxillary arch expansion with Invisalign Palatal Expander: a three-dimensional finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Biomechanical analysis of maxillary incisor intrusion with clear aligners under different periodontal conditions: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the biomechanical effects of attachment position (buccal vs. palatal) and the integration of pressure ridges on maxillary arch expansion with clear aligners using finite element analysis.
methodsFive 3D finite element models were constructed to simulate 0.2 mm of buccal expansion with different auxiliary configurations: (A) no attachment; (B) buccal attachments; (C) palatal attachments; (D) buccal attachments combined with palatal pressure ridges; and (E) palatal attachments combined with buccal pressure ridges. Biomechanical analysis quantified tooth displacement and stress distribution across tooth roots and periodontal ligament.
resultsGroups A-D exhibited significant buccal inclination in premolars and first molars, while second molar expansion remained limited. In contrast, Group E demonstrated a restricted expansion pattern. Regarding attachment position, palatal attachments (Group C) generated greater crown displacement in the mid-posterior segment (second premolar: 0.058 mm; first molar: 0.042 mm) compared to buccal attachments (Group B). Among the five groups, the buccal attachments combined with palatal pressure ridges (Group D) demonstrated superior biomechanical performance, achieving the greatest first molar expansion (0.057 mm) and favorable torque control (first molar: 3.42°/mm; second molar: 2.96°/mm). Notably, palatal attachments (Groups C and E) induced significantly higher von Mises stresses on the roots.
conclusionsMaxillary arch expansion with clear aligners is primarily achieved by buccal inclination of the posterior teeth. The configuration combining buccal attachments with palatal pressure ridges demonstrates biomechanical advantages, including enhanced crown displacement, better torque control, and favorable stress distribution.
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.