ArticleBMC oral health2026
Efficiency and biomechanics of a novel CAD/CAM individual distalizer versus cervical headgear: a preliminary prospective cohort study and exploratory 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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMaxillary molar distalization is one of the standard non-extraction strategies for correcting Class II malocclusion. However, conventional modalities are frequently hindered by profound compliance dependence, inadvertent anchorage loss, and the necessity for invasive surgical interventions. To address these limitations, a fully customized, non-invasive, intraorally cemented individual distalizer (ID) was engineered. The clinical efficiency of the ID was compared with that of the cervical headgear (CHG), and a finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted to investigate the differences in mechanical mechanisms.
methodsFifteen patients (24 molars) treated with the ID and 13 patients (26 molars) treated with CHG were enrolled. Molar and incisor three-dimensional movements were measured on superimposed digital models using the palatal rugae as a reference. Treatment duration and monthly distalization rates were calculated. FEA was conducted on a representative patient to simulate the stress distribution and displacement patterns under loading conditions of 200 g (ID) and 450 g (CHG). Stabilized inverse probability weighting (SIPW) was applied for potential baseline imbalances. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to analyze the data, accounting for the clustering of bilateral molars. The significance level was set at 5% (ɑ=0.05).
resultsThe distalization duration of the ID group (64.51 days, 95%CI [53.25, 75.77]) was significantly shorter than that of the CHG group (181.32 days, 95%CI [158.81, 203.83]) with similar distalization distance (P < 0.001). The ID group (1.97 mm/month, 95%CI [1.60, 2.34]) showed higher distalization efficiency compared with the CHG group (0.57 mm/month, 95%CI [0.18, 0.96]; P < 0.001). The ID group demonstrated a trend of molar intrusion (-0.03 mm, 95%CI [-0.61, 0.55]), while the CHG group showed the opposite (0.95 mm, 95CI [0.35, 1.56]; P = 0.033). Tooth movement of the ID and CHG groups in FEA corroborated these clinical findings. No significant differences were observed regarding molar inclination and torque, or anterior inclination and extrusion between the two groups.
conclusionsThe ID provides a highly efficient, compliance-independent alternative to cervical headgear, with the potential advantage of vertical molar control, making it particularly suitable for hyperdivergent patients. Nevertheless, careful monitoring of anterior anchorage is recommended during the distalization.
trial registrationThis study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100048402) on July 6, 2021.
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.