» Articles » PMID: 38218801

Comparative Assessment of Orthodontic Clear Aligner Versus Fixed Appliance for Anterior Retraction: a Finite Element Study

Overview
Journal BMC Oral Health
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2024 Jan 13
PMID 38218801
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative evaluation of different designs of clear aligners and examine the disparities between clear aligners and fixed appliances.

Methods: 3D digital models were created, consisting of a maxillary dentition without first premolars, maxilla, periodontal ligaments, attachments, micro-implant, 3D printed lingual retractor, brackets, archwire and clear aligner. The study involved the creation of five design models for clear aligner maxillary anterior internal retraction and one design model for fixed appliance maxillary anterior internal retraction, which were subsequently subjected to finite element analysis. These design models included: (1) Model C0 Control, (2) Model C1 Posterior Micro-implant, (3) Model C2 Anterior Micro-implant, (4) Model C3 Palatal Plate, (5) Model C4 Lingual Retractor, and (6) Model F0 Fixed Appliance.

Results: In the clear aligner models, a consistent pattern of tooth movement was observed. Notably, among all tested models, the modified clear aligner Model C3 exhibited the smallest differences in sagittal displacement of the crown-root of the central incisor, vertical displacement of the central incisor, sagittal displacement of the second premolar and second molar, as well as vertical displacement of posterior teeth. However, distinct variations in tooth movement trends were observed between the clear aligner models and the fixed appliance model. Furthermore, compared to the fixed appliance model, significant increases in tooth displacement were achieved with the use of clear aligner models.

Conclusions: In the clear aligner models, the movement trend of the teeth remained consistent, but there were variations in the amount of tooth displacement. Overall, the Model C3 exhibited better torque control and provided greater protection for posterior anchorage teeth compared to the other four clear aligner models. On the other hand, the fixed appliance model provides superior anterior torque control and better protection of the posterior anchorage teeth compared to clear aligner models. The clear aligner approach and the fixed appliance approach still exhibit a disparity; nevertheless, this study offers a developmental direction and establishes a theoretical foundation for future non-invasive, aesthetically pleasing, comfortable, and efficient modalities of clear aligner treatment.

Citing Articles

Expert consensus on the clinical strategies for orthodontic treatment with clear aligners.

Wang Y, Long H, Zhao Z, Bai D, Han X, Wang J Int J Oral Sci. 2025; 17(1):19.

PMID: 40074738 PMC: 11904224. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-025-00350-2.


Comparison of orthodontic clear aligners and fixed appliances for anterior teeth retraction using finite element analysis.

Thimmaiah C, Tomer G, Devanna R, Sharma A, Sharma T, Majumdar A Bioinformation. 2025; 20(9):1187-1190.

PMID: 39917246 PMC: 11795490. DOI: 10.6026/9732063002001187.


Seeking orderness out of the orderless movements: an up-to-date review of the biomechanics in clear aligners.

Li J, Si J, Xue C, Xu H Prog Orthod. 2024; 25(1):44.

PMID: 39551881 PMC: 11570571. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-024-00543-1.


Application and Future Utilization of Shellac in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review.

Baxmann M, Barath Z, Karpati K J Clin Med. 2024; 13(10).

PMID: 38792458 PMC: 11121943. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13102917.

References
1.
Shi Z, Xia K, Luo L, Zhao Z, Liu J . Three-dimensional finite element analysis of upper anterior teeth retraction and intrusion using clear aligners and mini-implants. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2024; 40(5):589-596. PMC: 9588856. DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2022.05.013. View

2.
Kusy R, Whitley J, Prewitt M . Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod. 1991; 61(4):293-302. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0293:COTFCF>2.0.CO;2. View

3.
Wang D, Li B, Xu Y, Dong X, Jiang X, Wu J . Biomechanical analysis of maxillary anterior teeth movements during different retracting methods with a lever arm miniscrew system in double-slot lingual brackets: A finite element method study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022; 26(3):364-370. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12618. View

4.
Upadhyay M, Nagaraj K, Yadav S, Saxena R . Mini-implants for en masse intrusion of maxillary anterior teeth in a severe Class II division 2 malocclusion. J Orthod. 2008; 35(2):79-89. DOI: 10.1179/146531207225022491. View

5.
S C, Keluskar K, Vasisht V, Revankar S . En-masse Retraction of the Maxillary Anterior Teeth by Applying Force from Four Different Levels - A Finite Element Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(9):ZC26-30. PMC: 4225968. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8408.4831. View