Traditional upper molar distalization techniques require patient co-operation with the headgear or elastics. Recently, several different intraoral procedures have been introduced to minimize the need for patient co-operation. This article reviews the appliances currently available for maxillary molar distalization and critically analyses their dentoalveolar and skeletal effects.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strengths of four light-cured glass ionomer cements used for direct bonding of ceramic brackets, and to compare the results with a two-paste chemically-cured composite resin. Two commercially available polycrystalline ceramic brackets, with either chemically or mechanically retentive bracket bases, were evaluated. The brackets were bonded to 100 freshly extracted bovine incisors, and, after storage in tap water at room temperature for 24 hours, they were subsequently tested in a shear mode using a universal testing machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure were recorded. With the mechanically retentive base, Fuji Ortho LC produced the highest bond strength (18.50 MPa), which was not significantly different from the values achieved with Concise (14.88 MPa) (P > 0.1) and Photac Bond (13.86 Mpa) (P = 0.1). The lowest bond strength was provided by locomp A20 (5.23 MPa). With the chemically retentive base, the highest bond strength was measured with Concise (29.27 MPa), which was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than the values for Photac Bond (16.27 MPa) and Fuji Ortho LC (13.48 MPa). Again locomp A20 produced the lowest bond strength (3.21 MPa). Three cements (Dyract Ortho, locomp A20 and Fuji Ortho LC) provided higher shear bond strengths with the mechanical retention system, whereas Concise and Photac Bond gave higher strengths with the silane-treated bracket bases. However, the strengths were statistically significantly different only for locomp A20 (P = 0.001) and Concise (P = 0.001). With the mechanically retentive base, Dyract Ortho and locomp A20 failed at the enamel-adhesive interface, whereas Photac Bond and Concise debonded at the bracket-adhesive interface. Fuji Ortho LC failed at both, the bracket-adhesive (40 per cent) and the adhesive-enamel (60 per cent) interface. With the chemically retentive base, all the adhesives failed at the enamel-adhesive interface. Only one bracket fracture occurred in this study, and no enamel damage was detected.