ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
A finite element study on three maxillary protraction devices for treating maxillary sagittal hypoplasia at different levels of bone fusion.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study utilized three-dimensional finite element analysis to assess stress distribution in the maxilla and sutures, as well as craniofacial bone and tooth displacement, in patients exhibiting mild to moderate sutural fusion when using three distinct maxillary protraction devices. Methods: A craniofacial composite model with mild to moderate sutural fusion was constructed and fitted with three types of appliances: a tooth-supported maxillary protraction device, a micro-implant maxillary protraction device, and an invisible aligner maxillary protraction device. A traction force was applied at a 30° forward-downward angle relative to the occlusal plane. The equivalent elastic strain conditions of the maxilla and suture lines were compared and analyzed, along with craniofacial bone and tooth displacement under various loading conditions. Results: Stress distribution in the sutures during maxillary protraction varied among the three appliance types. The micro-implant group exhibited the highest equivalent strain in the frontal-maxillary and naso-maxillary sutures, while the zygomatic-temporal suture experienced the greatest strain in the clear aligner group. Under the same level of suture fusion, the clear aligner group displayed the most significant maxillary displacement and incisor labial inclination, in contrast to the micro-implant group, which showed the least incisor labial inclination. As sutural fusion increased, both the stress on the sutures and the extent of skeletal displacement significantly decreased, while the propensity for maxillary rotation increased. Conclusion: Each of the three appliance types effectively facilitates maxillary advancement, though they result in varying degrees of incisor labial inclination. The osteogenic effect of maxillary protraction diminishes with increased sutural fusion. The micro-implant maxillary protraction appliance is advisable for patients with nasal root depression, while the clear aligner variant is preferable for those with midface depression. Furthermore, in patients with advanced sutural fusion, it is crucial to adjust the traction direction to mitigate undesirable maxillary rotation.
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.