A comparison of treatment effects of total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate vs buccal miniscrews

Abstract

Comparing the treatment effects between MCPP appliances and buccal miniscrews, the MCPP appliances showed greater distalization and intrusion with less distal tipping of the first molar and less extrusion of the incisor compared to the buccal miniscrews.

Distalization of the entire maxillary arch with mini-implants in the posterior palatal alveolus- A case report

“…The mini-implant thus placed on the palatal aspect was stable at the end of treatment and did not show any signs of failure. The treatment outcome was similar to the other existing studies [4,5] using palatal mini-implant which showed distalization and intrusion of the maxillary first molar, improvement in nasolabial angle and upper lip retraction. Although the overbite in the present case was only 1mm at the start of treatment, intrusion of the maxillary dentition did not result in an open bite probably because of the counter-clockwise rotation of the mandible.…”

“…To overcome this problem mini-implant may be placed on the palatal aspect where there was thick keratinized mucosa, sufficient cortical bone thickness, interradicular bone width and thickness. Existing literature shows that the modified 'C' palatal plate and modified palatal anchorage plate was the only appliance that brought about group distalization [5,6]. However, these appliances are bulky requires elaborate lab work and increased patient discomfort.…”

“…A lthough there are several ways to treat patient with mild arch length tooth size discrepancy, group distalization, otherwise called total arch distalization using mini implant may be considered as a better treatment option compared to proximal stripping and second premolar extraction since there is no loss of tooth material. Group distalization may be performed with buccal [1][2][3] or palatal mini-implants [4][5][6]. Some clinicians are skeptical with the use of buccal mini-implants for group distalization as they are placed in areas with limited inter-radicular bone width and may cause loosening and dis-lodgement due to root proximity.…”

“…Although there are several techniques that employ palatal mini-implants, many of these require extensive laboratory procedure which may be time-consuming, requires extended chair side time for placement, may involve distal movement of the maxillary first permanent molars alone and may be accompanied with increased patient discomfort [12][13][14][15][16][17]. Modified C palatal plate [5,6] and modified palatal anchorage palate [4] are the only palatal anchorage systems that bring about group distalization. To overcome the difficulties encountered with the above systems, we contemplated on a retraction mechanics that would be simple and effective and bring about distal movement of the entire maxillary dentition.…”

Long-term stability of miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization in Class II treatment

“…14,15 The introduction of miniscrew implants made skeletal anchorage more easily accessible for the orthodontist. 16 Miniscrew implants can be loaded directly 15,17 or through scaffolding 18,19 and have been shown to enable distal movement of the molars and premolars at the same time, 20,21 causing minimal distal tipping of the molars 21,22 which suggests high stability. However, throughout a lifetime, permanent molars exhibit mesial migration, 23 attributed to the anterior component of force, which is explained to result from mesial inclination of teeth.…”