Effects of attachment designs on clear aligner tooth movement: A finite element analysis

TL;DR

This study uses computer modeling to show how different attachment shapes in clear aligners affect tooth movement and stress in the mouth.

Contribution

The study introduces a finite element analysis comparing various attachment shapes and configurations to optimize clear aligner treatment outcomes.

Findings

Flat-shaped attachments (rectangular and trapezoidal) caused greater tooth movement but increased stress in the periodontal ligament and bone.

Dual attachments improved root movement and symmetry but increased strain.

Curved attachments spread forces more evenly but reduced movement efficiency.

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.

Figures