Efficiency evaluation of maxillary molar distalization using Invisalign based on palatal rugae registration

Author(s):  
Badr Sultan Saif ◽  
Feng Pan ◽  
Qingnan Mou ◽  
Mengqi Han ◽  
WenQing Bu ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger ◽  
Jan Hourfar ◽  
Jörg Alexander Lisson

Abstract Purpose Conventional anchorage with exclusively intraorally anchored appliances for non-compliance molar distalization combines a palatal acrylic button with periodontal anchorage. This type of anchorage is critically discussed because of the temporary hygienic impairment of the palate and the uncertain anchoring quality of the button. A purely dentally/periodontally anchored Pendulum K appliance was developed, which is exclusively anchored via four occlusal rests. The aims of this pilot study were to examine the suitability of the skeletonized Pendulum K for distalization of maxillary molars, and to investigate the quality of this alternative anchoring modality. Patients and methods In all, 10 patients received skeletonized Pendulum K appliances attached to all maxillary premolars for bilateral molar distalization. Supporting anchorage through an acrylic button adjacent to the anterior palate was not used. The pendulum springs were initially activated on both sides with a distalization force of 220 cN each and provided with uprighting and toe-in bends. The specific force/moment system was regularly reactivated intraorally by adjustment of the distal screw. Results The study demonstrates the suitability of the skeletonized Pendulum K appliance for the distalization of maxillary molars (3.28 ± 0.73 mm). Side effects on the molars were slight distal tipping (3.50 ± 2.51°/PP, 3.00 ± 1.41°/SN) and mesial inward rotation (average 2.75 ± 7.50° and 4.50 ± 12.77°). Significant anchorage loss occurred in the form of mesialization of the incisors by 1.40 ± 0.82 mm and of the first premolars by 2.28 ± 0.85 mm. Conclusion The skeletonized Pendulum K appliance allows compliance-free upper molar distalization. Exclusively dental/periodontal anchorage resulted in a lower percentage of molar distalization compared to a conventional anchoring preparation of the Pendulum K with a palatal acrylic button. Anchorage loss had a comparatively stronger effect on the anchoring premolars but less on the incisors. Typical side effects on the molars such as distal tipping and mesial inward rotation were remarkably low.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-208
Author(s):  
Mohammed Alfaifi ◽  
Jae Hyun Park ◽  
Kiyoshi Tai ◽  
Ja Hyeong Ku ◽  
Nikhilesh R Vaid ◽  
...  

Objectives: The aim of study was to evaluate skeletodental and soft tissue treatment effects and the amount of maxillary molar distalization with modified C-palatal plates vs. Greenfield molar distalizer appliances in adolescents. Study design: The samples consisted of pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms collected from 39 patients with Class II malocclusion. The MCPP group was comprised of 21 patients (mean age: 11.7 ± 1.3 years) treated with MCPP appliances while the GMD group included 18 patients (mean age: 11.2 ± 0.9 years) treated with GMD. Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. From each cephalograpm, twenty-nine variables were measured for analysis and then the two groups were compared. Descriptive statistics, a paired t-test, and multivariate analysis of variance were performed to compare the treatment effects within and between the groups. Results: There was significant treatmentrelated change in the sagittal position of the maxilla and the mandible within each group. However, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences. The mean maxillary first molar distalization was 3.96 mm in the MCPP group vs. 2.85 mm in the GMD group. Both groups showed minimal distal tipping, but the maxillary incisors were significantly extruded by 3.04 ± 0.89 mm (P < .001) in GMD group. There was no significant difference in treatment duration between the groups. Conclusions: The maxillary first molars of both the MCPP and GMD groups were effectively distalized and there were significant skeletal changes in the maxilla. However, the maxillary incisors were significantly extruded in the GMD group.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Quinzi ◽  
Enrico Marchetti ◽  
Luigi Guerriero ◽  
Floriana Bosco ◽  
Giuseppe Marzo ◽  
...  

Dentoskeletal class II malocclusion due to a protruded upper dental arch is a major reason for an orthodontic treatment. In these cases, the correction of class II can be hindered by molar distalization, obtained with ‘no-compliance therapy’ that involves the use of appliances which minimize the need for such co-operation and attempt to maximize the predictability of results. The aim of this review was to outline the effectiveness of no-compliance fixed orthodontic devices in the molar distalization. After selection according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 16 articles from 2000 to 2019 were qualified for the final analysis. The literature shows various no-compliance fixed devices whose effect is to distalize the maxillary molars. The present revision allows to conclude that there is a need to increase the number of studies, especially with regard to the most recently introduced devices in the literature. The analysed studies allow to hypothesize that these appliances act with a minimal variability of molar distalization and disto-inclination among them, although different effects among the appliances can be observed as regards to the anchorage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document