ArticlePloS one2026
Effects of attachment designs on clear aligner tooth movement: A finite element analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of attachment design and light-curing duration on shear bond strength in clear aligners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Clear aligner therapy: a scoping review of treatment prediction, clinical effectiveness, and limitations.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of different attachment shapes and configurations on the displacement, stress, and strain profiles of maxillary first molar during clear aligner-based orthodontic treatment. A subject-specific 3D maxillary model was developed from CBCT imaging, incorporating cortical and trabecular bone, periodontal ligament (PDL), teeth, attachments, and aligner geometry. Five attachment shapes square, rectangle, trapezoid, ellipse, and semicircle were analyzed in single and dual (buccal-lingual) configurations across four clinically relevant movements: mesialization, intrusion, extrusion, and rotation. Finite-element simulation results indicated that flat-shaped attachments (rectangular and trapezoidal) generated the greatest crown displacement but induced higher PDL strain (up to 0.390 mm/mm) and localized bone stress (7.11 MPa), particularly at the root apex and alveolar crest. Curved attachments provided more diffused load distribution but significantly reduced movement efficiency. Dual attachments improved root engagement and bodily displacement in all movement types, mitigating undesired tipping and enhancing force symmetry, albeit with elevated strain. Rotational control was most influenced by attachment geometry, with flat designs producing greater angular movement. Overall, attachment shape and placement exert a substantial influence on orthodontic biomechanics during aligner therapy. The findings underscore the need for evidence-based attachment protocols tailored to specific movement goals and patient risk profiles. These insights can guide clinicians toward optimizing clear aligner treatments for improved movement precision, minimized biological risk, and enhanced treatment outcomes in complex orthodontic cases.
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.