ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effects of different distal-end aligner designs on maxillary premolar distalization.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sequential distalization of the maxillary dentition is widely used to gain space for crowding relief, molar relationship correction, and facial profile improvement. Using three-dimensional finite element analysis, we evaluated the biomechanical impact of different distal-end clear aligner designs during premolar distalization in maxillary sequential distalization, with the aim of reducing mesial relapse of teeth that had already reached their planned positions and improving overall distalization efficiency. Material and methods: Two initial models were constructed: In Model A, both maxillary molars were distalized by 2 mm to reach the planned positions. In Model B, both maxillary molars and the maxillary second premolar were distalized by 2 mm to reach the planned positions. Four aligner configurations were defined in Model A: A0, control (conventional design); A1, distal coverage removed at U7; A2, distal coverage removed at U6; and A3, distal coverage removed at U7 and U6. Five aligner configurations were defined in Model B: B0, control (conventional design); B1, distal coverage removed at U7; B2, distal coverage removed at U5 and U6; B3, distal coverage removed only at U5; and B4, distal coverage removed at U7, U6, and U5. We quantified tooth displacement, space-closure component ratios, and periodontal ligament (PDL) equivalent stress under each condition. Results: For Model A, the contribution of U5 distal displacement to U5-U6 space closure was 68.08%, 66.48%, 70.44%, and 92.01% in A0-A3, respectively, and was highest in A3. In Model B, the contribution of U4 distal displacement to U4-U5 space closure was 69.22%, 68.15%, 70.55%, 70.47%, and 81.19% in B0-B4, respectively, and was highest in B4. Conclusion: During second premolar distalization in maxillary sequential distalization, removing distal-portion coverage at U7 and U6 effectively reduced mesial relapse of already distalized molars, thereby protecting posterior anchorage. Similarly, during first premolar distalization, to reduce relapse of distalized teeth, distal-portion coverage should be removed at U7, U6, and U5.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.