Assessment of mandibular retromolar space in adults with regard to third molar eruption status

Guo, Xueqiang; Gao, Yang; Zhang, Fan; Wang, Meng; Xia, Tian; Huang, Qing; Liu, Xinqiang

doi:10.1007/s00784-022-04782-6

Cited by 1 publication

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have found that patients with a high-angle vertical facial type have the shortest MRSL and those with a low-angle type have the longest MRSL, 9,14 whereas other studies have found the longest MRSL in normodivergent individuals. 13 Specifically, two recent studies showed a correlation between the presence of M3 and the MRSL, 4,15 contrasting earlier findings that indicated no such effect. 7,9,12 In summary, orthodontists are highly interested in understanding the MRSL for molar distalization, the percentage of initial rootinner cortex contact (IRCCP), and their influencing factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…15 In addition, Guo et al observed that patients with normally erupted or vertically impacted M3s had significantly longer MRSL than those with missing, horizontally impacted, or mesially impacted M3s. 4 Regarding the IRCCP, Guo et al 4 found that the M3 group had the lowest root cortical contact rate, whereas the mesially impacted group had the highest rate of 48.64%. 2022) reported that the MRSL was longer in males than in females.…”

Section: M3 Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 Regarding the conflicting findings for the relationship between the MRSL and the presence of M3s, recent studies confirmed that solely considering the presence or absence of M3s is insufficient for determining the MRSL, as the MRSL is affected by the impaction status of the M3s. 4,15 All of these studies found that patients with normal erupted M3s and vertically impacted M3s had a significantly longer MRSL than those in which the M3s were missing, horizontally impacted, or mesially impacted. However, the prevalence of M3 agenesis relates to race, being 22.63% worldwide 35 and 28.7% in China.…”

Section: Reported Mrsl Along the Pol And Its Influencing Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the root levels, previous studies have shown that the width of the available space in the posterior mandible is not a constraining factor for molar distalization. Instead, it is the available length of the mandibular retromolar space (MRSL) that plays a major role 4 . Nevertheless, when it comes to MRSL and its influencing factors, orthodontists currently do not have a very clear understanding or knowledge of these aspects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, it is the available length of the mandibular retromolar space (MRSL) that plays a major role. 4 Nevertheless, when it comes to MRSL and its influencing factors, orthodontists currently do not have a very clear understanding or knowledge of these aspects. But this understanding is crucial for orthodontists in their treatment planning and in avoiding orthodontic risks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Boundary of mandibular molar distalization in orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Liu,

Chu,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore the mandibular retromolar space length (MRSL), initial root‐inner cortex contact percentage (IRCCP), and the various factors that influence mandibular molar distalization. Searches were undertaken in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and grey literature (Google Scholar and OpenGrey) for eligible cross‐sectional observational studies measuring the MRSL and IRCCP in healthy adult patients. The risk of bias and evidence quality were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist and GRADE framework. Thirteen studies involving 1169 patients were included for qualitative synthesis. Seven of these studies were eligible for quantitative analysis. Meta‐analysis showed that the mean MRSL at the subfurcation‐6 mm plane in Asian normodivergent cases was 3.78 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.81–4.35; I2 = 79.7%) for skeletal Class‐I malocclusions, 3.02 mm (95% CI: 2.10–3.94; I2 = 62.5%) for Class‐II, and 4.43 mm (95% CI: 3.14–5.73; I2 = 75.1%) for Class‐III. The mean MRSL at the sub‐cementoenamel junction (CEJ)‐10 mm plane for Asian, Class‐I, normodivergent cases was 3.28 mm (95% CI: 2.44–4.12; I2 = 68.9%). The mean IRCCP for Asian, Class‐I, normodivergent cases was 27.2% (95% CI: 0.22–0.32; I2 = 0%). In Asian normodivergent cases, MRSL ranges from 3.28 to 4.43 mm with a 27.2% IRCCP for Class‐I. Cone‐beam computed tomography imaging is recommended for measuring the MRSL in the apex region particularly before molar distalization. Factors influencing MRSL and IRCCP include different races, skeletal patterns, facial types, and third‐molar status.

show abstract