Treatment stability after total maxillary arch distalization with modified C-palatal plates in adults

Self Cite

Distalization of maxillary dentition is an efficient option, especially for patients seeking non-extraction treatment modalities. 1 Nevertheless, the fundamental quandary is finding the appropriate anchorage that will not produce unwanted side effects. Extraoral anchorage and non-compliance intraoral appliances such as the pendulum and distal jet have been used for maxillary molar distalization. 2,3 However, they often yield undesirable tooth movement such as distal tipping and extrusion of molars and protrusion of incisors due to loss of anchorage. 4,5

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Distalization of maxillary molars using temporary skeletal anchorage devices: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Bayome

Park

Bay

et al. 2021

Self Cite

“…[4][5][6][7] In addition, anchor plates in the zygomatic buttress and modified C-palatal plates (MCPPs) have been reported to distalize maxillary molars. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] When using nonextraction treatment to achieve posterior movement of molars in adolescents, the third molars' initial position needs to be considered. Kinzinger et al 17 reported that a third molar bud could sometimes act as a fulcrum, affecting the second molar when a modified pendulum is used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, several devices such as headgear and pendulum appliances have been used to distalize maxillary molars during nonextraction treatment, 1‐3 but some studies achieved successful distalization using buccal miniscrews 4‐7 . In addition, anchor plates in the zygomatic buttress and modified C‐palatal plates (MCPPs) have been reported to distalize maxillary molars 8‐16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with the maxillary third molar position after total arch distalization using a modified C‐palatal plate in adolescents

Kang

Lee

Kim

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term position of erupted third molars after maxillary total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plates (MCPPs) in adolescents and to identify factors associated with these positions. Setting and Sample Population: Sixty-two third molars (male: 20, female: 42) in Class II patients treated with MCPPs and thirty-nine teeth for the Control group (male: 22, female: 17). Materials and methods: Samples were analyzed using panoramic radiographs taken initially (T0), after treatment (T1) and after >3 years retention (T2). Third molars were classified as downward (Group A, N = 31; males: 12, females: 19) and upward (Group B, N = 31; males: 8, females: 23) based on their vertical position after treatment. Analysis of variance and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed. Results: The vertical position of the third molars of Group A, Group B, and the Control showed a 2.2, 3.5 and 2.7 mm downward movement at T2. However, there was no difference in the amount of third molar eruption among the groups. Regarding factors affecting the vertical distance of the third molar, Age, C8-OP, ∠8-OP and D7-T at the initial affected vertical position of the third molars after molar distalization (P < .05). Conclusions: Group A and B showed no difference in the third molar eruption during retention after total arch distalization. This study suggests that it might be unnecessary to extract the developing third molar before molar distalization in Class II adolescents.

“…20,21 Meanwhile, the development of TSADs over the past decade has expanded the envelope of non-extraction treatment. 6,[22][23][24] Although some authors reported the treatment of full-step Class II or severe overjet cases with palatal TSADs for total arch distalization, 13,14 no cohort studies have assessed the treatment outcomes after distalization with TSADs in adult Class II patients with a large overjet.…”

Section: Ta B L E 2 Comparison Of Pretreatment Variables Between the ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of treatment effects from total arch distalization using modified C‐palatal plates versus maxillary premolar extraction in Class II patients with severe overjet

Alfawaz

Park

Lee

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Introduction This study aimed to compare the skeletodental and soft tissue changes with total arch distalization using a modified C‐palatal plate (MCPP) and maxillary first premolar extraction treatment in Class II malocclusion patients with severe overjet. Setting and sample population The sample consisted of 46 adult patients who had Class II Division 1 malocclusion with severe overjet; 25 of them received non‐extraction treatment with MCPPs (age, 22.5 ± 7.2 years), and 21 received maxillary first premolar extraction treatment (age 23.4 ± 6.5 years). Method A total of 26 variables were measured on pre‐ and post‐treatment lateral cephalograms. To evaluate the differences between pretreatment and post‐treatment in each group, t tests and Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests were used. To compare the amount of change between the two groups, MANOVA test was used. Results The overjet was significantly reduced in the MCPP and extraction groups by 4.8 mm and 5.4 mm, respectively. However, the two groups had no significant difference in the sagittal, vertical and angular changes of the maxillary incisors. In addition, regarding soft tissue changes, the MCPP and extraction groups showed an increased nasolabial angle of 7.5° and 9.4°, decreased upper lip to the true vertical line of 1.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions There was no significant difference in the skeletal changes between the MCPP and extraction groups, and the reduction in overjet was similar in the groups. These results suggest that MCPP might be a viable treatment option for total arch distalization in Class II malocclusion patients with severe overjet.