Japanese NiTi coils used to move molars distally

103

Objective: To use published data to evaluate quantitatively the dental effects of noncompliance intramaxillary appliances in individuals with Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: A literature search was carried out identifing 13 prospective or retrospective clinical studies matching inclusion criteria. Only appliances with conventional anchorage designs were considered for the review. The data provided in these publications were grouped and analyzed in terms of molar distalization, tipping and vertical movements, and incisor and premolar mesialization, tipping, and vertical movements. Results: Maxillary first molars showed distal crown movement and tipping greater than the mesial crown movement and tipping shown by incisors and premolars. Vertical movements of incisors and premolars were in general extrusive, but molars were intrusive or extrusive, depending on the study and the type of appliance used. Appliances that acted palatally seemed to display a smaller distal tipping movement, as well as smaller incisor and premolar mesial tipping movements, when compared with those that acted buccally. Friction-free appliances, namely the pendulum, produced a large amount of mesiodistal movement and tipping, if no therapeutic uprighting activation was applied. Conclusions: Noncompliance intramaxillary molar distalization appliances all act by distalizing molars with a concomitant and unavoidable loss of anchorage, as revealed by incisor and premolar mesial movement. Buccal acting and palatal acting appliances demonstrate almost similar results, with palatal acting appliances showing less tipping. Friction-free palatal acting appliances appear to produce better molar distalizing effects, but with a concomitant notable loss of anchorage.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Molar Distalization with Noncompliance Intramaxillary Appliances in Class II Malocclusion

Antonarakis

Kiliaridis

2008

103

“…7,11,12 Placement of miniscrews in the buccal interradicular bone is one of the most common approaches used to provide skeletal anchorage. [6][7][8][9][10] The interradicular space is a potentially advantageous region for insertion because the miniscrew would cause fewer com- 16 Wilson distalizing arches, 17,18 removable spring appliances, [19][20][21] distal jet appliances, 22 intermaxillary elastics with sliding jigs, 23,24 and pendulum appliances. 25,26 However, these conventional techniques often are accompanied by unwanted side effects of flaring or mesial movement of the anterior teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distal Movement of Maxillary Molars Using Miniscrew Anchorage in the Buccal Interradicular Region

Yamada

Kuroda

Deguchi

et al. 2009

130

Objective: To quantify the treatment effects of interradicular miniscrew anchorage and to confirm the validity of the clinical usage of interradicular miniscrews in the distal movement of maxillary molars in nonextraction treatment. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four maxillary molars were moved to the distal using miniscrews placed in the interradicular space between the second premolar and the first molar at an oblique angle of 20 to 30 degrees to the long axis of the proximal tooth. The teeth were evaluated as to how the molars were moved to the distal with the use of lateral cephalograms and dental casts. Results: Maxillary molars were moved to the distal by 2.8 mm with distal tipping of 4.8 degrees and intruded by 0.6 mm. Maxillary incisors were moved to the distal by 2.7 mm with palatal tipping of 4.3 degrees. Molar extrusion and/or consequent mandibular rotation was not observed in any patient. Conclusion: Miniscrews placed in the maxillary interradicular space provide successful molar distal movement of 2.8 mm without patient compliance and with no undesirable side effects such as incisor proclination, clockwise mandibular rotation, or root resorption. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79: 78-84.)

“…These include the repelling magnet, [1][2][3][4][5] coil springs on a continuous arch wire, 6,7 superelastic nickel-titanium arch wires, 8 coil springs on a sectional arch wire (Jones jig, [9][10][11][12][13] distal jet, [14][15][16] Keles slider 17,18 ), and springs in beta titanium alloy (pendulum, [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] K-loop, 26 intraoral bodily molar distalizer 27 ). Intraoral distal force appliances are designed to apply continuous reciprocal forces on maxillary molars, which also cause mesial reactive forces on the anterior anchoring teeth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distal Movement of Maxillary Molars Using a Lever-arm and Mini-implant System

Lim¹,

Hong²

2008

Recently, many studies have been reported on distal molar movement using temporary anchorage devices. However, the side effects of distal movement, such as distal tipping, rotation, or extrusion, are still unsolved. This article describes the use of the lever-arm and mini-implant system for controlled distal movement of maxillary molars and two clinical cases in which patients were treated with this system. Mini implants are needed to control the point of force application in the posterior area with no anchorage loss. When the length of the lever arm and the position of the mini implant are adjusted, the desired line of action of the distal force is determined with respect to the center of resistance of maxillary molars. The lever-arm and mini-implant system is useful not only for absolute anchorage, but also for three-dimensional control during distal movement of the upper molars.