ArticleBMC oral health2026
Mastering molar mesialization: the role of attachment designs and tipping compensation in clear aligner therapy-a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
introductionTo investigate the effects of attachment design and compensation angulation on long-distance molar mesialization in clear aligner therapy (CAT).
methodsThe study used a dental model from an adult volunteer with missing first molar (M1), wherein the second and third molars (M2 and M3) required mesialization. Three attachment designs-horizontal rectangular (HA), single 45°(SA), and double 45°(DA)-were applied to the buccal surface of M2 to assess their influence on movement efficiency. Subsequently, distal tipping overcorrection angles of 0°, 0.5°, 1° and 1.5°were applied to M2 to assess their effect on tipping control. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to analyze displacement patterns and stress distribution.
resultsMesial tipping and transverse crown rotation of the M2 constituted the primary adverse outcomes during molar mesialization. The attachments effectively mitigated these undesirable movements, with the DA design demonstrating the highest efficacy, followed by the SA. For the SA design, a 1.5° distal compensation angle was required to may facilitate near-bodily movement. In contrast, the DA design may facilitate, near-bodily movement with only a 1° compensation angle.
conclusionLong-distance molar mesialization primarily results in the adverse effects of mesial tipping and transverse crown rotation in CAT. While attachments can mitigate these adverse effects, applying appropriate angular compensation is more effective in promoting bodily movement of the molars.
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.