ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2026
Effects of attachment design and location on derotation of mandibular second premolars : A finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the effects of attachment design and location on derotation of mandibular second premolars through the finite element method. MATERIALS AND
methodsA mandibular model consisting of teeth, periodontal ligament (PDL), trabecular/compact bones, attachment, and clear aligner was created. Tooth 35 was positioned with 30° mesial rotation. Seven treatment scenarios were planned to analyze the derotation movement, i.e., Model 1: no attachment; Model 2: buccal vertical rectangular attachment (VRA); Model 3: buccal beveled VRA (bVRA); Model 4: lingual VRA: Model 5: lingual bVRA; Model 6: buccal and lingual VRAs; and Model 7: buccal and lingual bVRAs. Derotation activation was 1.2° for each aligner. Tooth displacement, aligner deformation, and stresses produced in the PDL and the aligner were analyzed.
resultsThe highest value for tooth displacement (0.087 mm, 0.51°) was detected in Model 7, while Model 1 exhibited the lowest value (0.067 mm, 0.39°). Model 7 created the least deformation of the clear aligner (0.469 mm) and the highest stresses in the PDL (6.780 MPa) and the clear aligner (101.258 MPa), whereas Model 1 induced the highest deformation of the clear aligner (0.523 mm) and the lowest stresses in the PDL (6.253 MPa) and the clear aligner (62.667 MPa). Greater derotations were observed in models with bVRA than in those with VRA in the same placement and in models with attachments on both surfaces than in those with attachment on one surface.
conclusionbVRAs placed on both the buccal and lingual surfaces provided the most controlled and predictable derotation movement. Aligner deformation and stresses produced in the PDL and the clear aligner showed biomechanical harmony with the movement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41807768What 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.