## 4 Discussion
[44] (lower third molar, intact periodontitis, single model, sample size of one, Von Mises criteria, intrusion: 10 N, tipping/translation: 3 N, bone: 142,305 elements, global element size: 0.25-1 mm), reported similar qualitative results (cervical third alveolar bone socket stress), but with an extension on both vestibular and lingual sides (due to the three rooted anatomical reconstructions that are closer to bone-implant models [19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27] than tooth models). By following anatomical correctness, we addressed this issue in the herein models. [PERSON] et al. [44] quantitatively reported 10.5 MPa for 10 N of intrusion, 11.5 MPa for 3 N of tipping, and 16.83 MPa for 3 N of translation for alveolar bone socket cervical third and higher than herein for cervical radicular dentine for translation 20.36 MPa, intrusion 18.36 MPa, tipping 19.62 MPa, while in our study 0.6 N produced 149.83 KPa/0.149 MPa (intrusion), 146.53 KPa/0.146 MPa (tipping), and 185.28 KPa/0.185 MPa (translation), and 2.4 N displayed 599.32 KPa/0.599 MPa (intrusion), 586.12 KPa/0.586 MPa (tipping), and 741.14 KPa/0.741 MPa (translation). It was assumed that these differences were due to boundary conditions (global element size 0.25-1 mm and 142,305 elements [44] vs. global element size 0.08-0.116 mm and 5,117,355 elements herein) and models' anatomy (idealized third molar [44] vs. anatomically correct second premolar). [PERSON] et al. [43] (intact periodontitis, two models, sample size of two, Von Mises criteria, tipping: 0.35/0.5 N, canine model: 23,565 elements, incisor-canine-first premolar model: 32,812 element, global element size: 1.2 mm) reported qualitative resembling results (as extension and topography--in bone, PDL, and radicular dentine). Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that their color-coded results were red--orange in the entire stress areas (high ischemic and resorptive risks) for light forces of 0.35 N, that clinically is not true. They also reported PDL quantitative stresses of 32-324.5 KPa, exceeding MHP signaling high resorptive risks, in total disagreement with herein and clinical data. In intact periodontitis, both [PERSON] et al. [49] (single simplified model of second upper premolar, intrusion) and [PERSON] et al. [50] (single simplified model of first lower premolar, intrusion) reported comparable qualitative but higher quantitative results. [PERSON] et al. [37; 38] (intact periodontitis, one model, sample size of one, hydrostatic pressure criteria, maxillary first molar, intrusion: 0.5-1 N, PDL: 195,881-215,887 elements, tooth: 71,114-74,777 elements) reported maximum stresses of 9.95e-00 TPa in the entire radicular dentine apical third, suggesting extended resorptive risks, in total disagreement with herein and contradicting clinical data. Moreover, the hydrostatic pressure criterion was specially designed for liquids (with no shear stress), thus its employment in dental tissues is not correct, as proven in other reports [3; 9; 48]. [PERSON] et al. [29] (upper incisor, intact periodontitis, one model, sample size of one, Von Mises criteria, intrusion, extrusion, tipping, translation, and rotation, model: 11,924 elements and 20,852 nodes) reported lower amounts of alveolar bone socket and radicular dentine cervical stress as well as intrusion and extrusion to be more stressful than rotation and tipping, in total disagreement with herein (most likely due to boundary condition differences). [PERSON] et al. [42] (upper first molar, intact periodontitis, one model, sample size of one, Von Mises criteria, intrusion and tipping: 150 N, model: 30,838 nodes and 167,089 elements) quantitatively reported 1.33-1.95 MPa for intrusion and 2.16-8.15 MPa for tipping, and tipping to be more stressful than intrusion (in agreement with herein), but qualitatively displaying extended stress areas in the entire alveolar socket (in disagreement with herein).