Dynamic biomechanical changes of clear aligners during extraction space closure: Finite element analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clear aligners (CAs) have recently become popular and widely used orthodontic appliances. Research on CA biomechanics has become a focal point in orthodontics to improve the efficiency of CA treatment and address challenging issues, such as extraction. The biomechanical characteristics of CAs in space closure have been reported. However, previous studies have mainly focused on static biomechanical analysis that cannot demonstrate the dynamic biomechanical changes in CAs during space-closing. Given that these biomechanical changes can be significant and have considerable clinical value, this study aimed to investigate these characteristics. METHODS: Sequential extraction space-closing models were derived from included patient data and refined using modeling and CA design software. A finite element analysis was performed to obtain biomechanical raw data. This study introduced a dual coordinate system and space geometry analysis to demonstrate the biomechanical properties accurately. RESULTS: As space closure progressed, the instantaneous tooth displacements increased, indicating an enhanced space closure force because of the increased strain in the CA extraction area. Meanwhile, the central axis of rotation of the anterior teeth continuously moved toward the labial-apical direction, showing a gradually enhanced vertical and torque control effect. CONCLUSIONS: During space closure, CAs undergo specific biomechanical changes, including increased contraction and control forces on both sides of the gap. These biomechanical effects are beneficial to alleviate the roller coaster effect gradually. Meanwhile, more reasonable staging design strategies can be proposed on the basis of this biomechanical mechanism.

Different biomechanical effects of clear aligners in closing maxillary and mandibular extraction spaces: Finite element analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Compared with fixed treatments, clear aligners (CAs) have the advantages of comfort, esthetics, and hygiene, and are popular among patients and orthodontists. However, CAs exhibit control deficiencies in extraction patients because of insufficient root control and retention effects. These deficiencies can magnify biomechanical differences in bimaxillary dentition, further causing different orthodontic requirements between maxillary and mandibular dentition. This study aimed to elaborate on the biomechanical characteristics of bimaxillary dentition in extraction space closure and provided feasible biomechanical compensation strategies for use in clinical practice. METHODS: We constructed a 3-dimensional (3D) bimaxillary model based on patient data. Several 3D modeling-related software was used to generate a standard first premolar extraction model, CAs, and attachments. Subsequently, finite element analysis was performed to demonstrate the biomechanical effects. RESULTS: The maxillary and mandibular dentition showed a roller coaster effect during space closure. Compared with the maxillary dentition, the mandibular posterior teeth exhibited stronger relative anchorage causing greater anterior teeth retraction. The tipping and vertical movements of the anterior teeth were related to tooth length. The longer the anterior tooth, the less tipping and greater vertical displacement occurred. Generally, when having the same retraction distance, the mandibular dentition exhibited greater retroclination and fewer extrusions. Both mechanical and retention compensations should be considered to prevent these unwanted tipping movements. Adding specific attachments to bimaxillary dentitions compensated for the retention and root control deficiencies of CAs. CONCLUSIONS: When applying CAs to extraction patients, different biomechanical effects can present in the bimaxillary dentition because of specific dentition morphologies. To effectively treat these patients, mechanical compensation through overcorrection of the target position should be designed on the basis of bimaxillary control deficiencies, and retention compensation by adding specific attachments should also be considered according to the overcorrections.

Different biomechanical effects of clear aligners in bimaxillary space closure under two strong anchorages: finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clear aligner (CA) treatment has been gaining popularity, but the biomechanical effects of CAs in bimaxillary dentition have not been thoroughly investigated. Direct and indirect strong anchorages are two common anchorage control methods, but the underlying biomechanical mechanism has not yet been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the different biomechanical effects of CAs in closing the bimaxillary space under different anchorage controls, further instructing the compensation strategies design and strong anchorage choice in clinical practice. METHODS: Three-dimensional (3D) bimaxillary models of different anchorage controls were created based on cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scan data. Four first premolars were extracted using 3D modeling software. Finite element analysis was conducted to simulate the space closure process of the CAs. RESULTS: In the two strong anchorage groups, the bimaxillary dentition presented different movement patterns during the space closure process, and the lower dentition was more vulnerable to elastic force. From the vertical view, direct strong anchorage with elastic force had the advantage of flattening the longitudinal occlusal curve and resisting the roller-coaster effects, whereas indirect strong anchorage could lead to a deep longitudinal occlusal curve. From the sagittal view, indirect strong anchorage with metallic ligaments had a greater instantaneous anchorage protection effect, particularly in the lower dentition, which reduced the mesial movement of the posterior teeth by nearly four times that of the direct anchorage group. In addition, indirect strong anchorage presented better anterior teeth torque/tipping control, while direct strong anchorage could aggravate lingual tipping of the upper central incisors. Due to the differences in anterior-posterior anchorage and arch shape, compared with the upper dentition, anchorage preservation and vertical control effects were amplified in the lower dentition. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical effects of CAs differed between the two strong anchorage groups. Due to the differences in dentition morphology, anterior-posterior anchorage, and dental arch shape, CAs present different biomechanical effects in bimaxillary space closure. Orthodontists should consider the corresponding mechanical compensation according to specific anchorage control methods and dentitions.