Analysis of midpalatal miniscrew-assisted maxillary molar distalization patterns with simultaneous use of fixed appliances: A preliminary study

Abstract

Skeletal anchorage-assisted upper molar distalization has become one of the standard treatment modalities for the correction of Class II malocclusion. The purpose of this study was to analyze maxillary molar movement patterns according to appliance design, with the simultaneous use of buccal fixed orthodontic appliances. The authors devised two distinct types of midpalatal miniscrew-assisted maxillary molar distalizers, a lingual arch type and a pendulum type. Fourteen patients treated with one of the two types of distalizers were enrolled in the study, and the patterns of tooth movement associated with each type were compared. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. The lingual arch type was associated with relatively bodily upper molar distalization, while the pendulum type was associated with distal tipping with intrusion of the upper molar. Clinicians should be aware of the expected tooth movement associated with each appliance design. Further well designed studies with larger sample sizes are required.

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

“…3,4,23,24 They have been marked by untoward side effects including extrusion, distal tipping, and the distal rotation of the maxillary first molars. [25][26][27][28] Previously, the treatment effects of a single buccally placed miniscrew on each side resulted in 1.4 to 2.0 mm of molar distalization and 1 mm intrusion with approximately 3.58 of distal tipping. 10 In the current study, the miniscrew group showed 2.0 mm of Recently, Bechtold et al 11 demonstrated a difference in the distalization pattern depending on the number of miniscrews.…”

Three-dimensional evaluation of tooth movement in Class II malocclusions treated without extraction by orthodontic mini-implant anchorage

“…the other hand, the process of maxillary teeth distalization with OMI anchorage is completely different from the conventional distalization technique previously reported. 7 8 9 10 11 12 A two-stage method was frequently used to distalize the maxillary teeth during nonextraction treatment of Class II patients with intraoral distalizing appliances. In the first stage, the maxillary molars moved distally, but loss of anchorage often occurred during molar distalization, which is characterized by mesial movement of the premolars and flaring of the anterior teeth.…”

“…Orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs), known as temporary anchorage devices, were introduced in clinical orthodontics to prevent loss of anchorage and could have specific advantages for nonextraction treatment by providing absolute anchorage. 12 13 14 Their ability to retract the whole dentition can minimize any adverse reciprocal movement and maximize the efficiency of treatment. 1 15 …”

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.…”