Distalization of maxillary first and second molars simultaneously with repelling magnets

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical and the dentofacial effects of using repelling SmCo5 magnets for distalization of maxillary first and second molars simultaneously. Ten consecutive patients, aged 12.0-15.6 years, with Class II malocclusion and moderate space deficiency in the upper jaw were orthodontically treated using prefabricated repelling SmCo5 magnets. The magnets were attached buccally in the premolar and first molar area to a fixed orthodontic applicance. When the magnets were activated, the molars could move freely distally. The tooth movements were analysed by measurements on dental casts, lateral photographs of dental casts, and lateral skull radiographs before and after treatment. The mean treatment time was 16.6 weeks and all maxillary molars could be distalized to a Class I relationship. The mean molar crown movement was 4.2 mm, and the maxillary first molars tipped distally and rotated disto-buccally by 8.0 and 8.5 degrees, respectively. The reciprocal forces resulted in a slightly increased inclination of the upper incisors. It was found that simultaneous distalization of first and second maxillary molars with repelling magnets could be an alternative to ordinary orthodontic treatment methods. As the molar distalization was achieved during a relatively short period, occlusal adjustment, including uprighting and derotation of the maxillary molars as well as post-treatment retention, seems recommendable.

Maxillary Molar Distalization with Noncompliance Intramaxillary Appliances in Class II Malocclusion

“…The articles that contained relevant and sufficient data for this study were further narrowed down to 13 ( Table 1) by application of the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] The results described below are summarized in Table 2 …”

Early Treatment with a Maxillary Lip Bumper-Bite Plateau Combination

“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] All these appliances do, however, also lead to anterior displacement on the anchor units and increase in overjet if not combined with skeletal anchorage. The displacement of the molars alone could not explain the marked improvement of the molar relationship seen with the lip bumper combination.…”

“…Corresponding author: Dr Marcel Korn, 328 Newbury Street, Boston, MA 02115. include molar distalization by means of different types of headgear, [2][3][4] Class II elastics, [5][6][7] and an increasing number of noncompliance appliances such as Pendulum appliances, 8,9 Jones Jig, 10 distal jets, [11][12][13] magnets, [14][15][16] and various types of Herbst appliances, 17,18 to mention only a few. As absolute anchorage cannot be obtained by any of these anchorage systems.…”

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

“…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.…”