ArticleBMC oral health2026
Biomechanical analysis of retracting maxillary incisors using clear aligners with palatal mini-implants in extraction cases: 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. 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
Abstract
backgroundAt present, the clinical orthodontic effects associated with the application of clear aligners to extraction cases featuring retraction of the anterior teeth remain a cause for concern. In the present study, the biomechanical effects of this strategy on the maxillary dentition, periodontal ligament, and clear aligners were analysed when palatal micro-implants were used in combination with different traction methods.
methodsSeveral models, including the maxillary dentition (without first premolars), maxilla, periodontal ligaments (PDLs), and aligners, were constructed and imported to finite element software. Four model groups were created: (1) G1 (pure aligner retraction force), (2) G2 (the combination of aligner retraction force with elastic force applied between the palatal mini-implant and the traction button), (3) G3 (the combination of aligner retraction force with elastic force applied between the palatal mini-implant and the precision cutting), and (4) G4 (the combination of aligner retraction force with passive ligation, i.e., rigid wire ligation between the mini-implant and the lingual button on the second premolar). The magnitude of the elastic traction force was increased from 100 g to 250 g, with a gradient increment of 50 g. Subsequently, finite element analysis was performed to simulate the biomechanical effects.
resultsCompared with G1, the incisors in G2 exhibited a larger incisor retraction distance and better vertical control. Although incisor retraction in G3 was slightly lower than that in G2, this method demonstrated better control of anterior teeth torque and anchorage of the posterior teeth. In G4, there was a tendency for a slight increase in incisor retraction compared to G1, while vertical extrusion and lingual tipping of the incisors were the most severe. In G2 and G3, the magnitude of the palatal elastic retraction force within the range of 100 to 150 g was conducive to the retraction of incisors, torque and vertical control of anterior teeth.
conclusionsThe combination of aligner retraction force with an appropriate retraction force applied to palatal micro-implants was beneficial for improving the efficiency of incisor retraction, as well as enhancing both vertical control and torque control. However, appropriate overtreatment should be designed to ensure bodily retraction and reduce tipping movement.
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.