Effectiveness of the Passive Lingual Arch for E Space Maintenance in Subjects with Anterior or Posterior Rotation of the Mandible: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether or not lingual arches in subjects with anterior or posterior mandible rotation can produce different effects in the prevention of first permanent molar mesial migration. Subjects and Methods: Forty-two patients with a mean age of 9 ± 0.8 years were selected from the Department of Orthodontics, University of Catania, Italy. These subjects were treated with a passive mandibular fixed lingual arch. The sample was divided into 3 groups according to the gonial angle in order to establish the pattern of mandible growth: mandibular posterior rotation (MPR), mandibular growth in straight-downward direction (MSD) and mandibular anterior rotation (MAR). Lateral cephalograms and study models of the patients before and after treatment were examined to determine any positional changes of the mandibular first molars and incisors. Results: Statistically significant differences between the MPR group and the other 2 (MSD and MAR) were found as regards mandibular first molar and incisor positional changes. No significant differences were found between the MSD and MAR groups. Conclusion: The results indicate that the effect of lingual arch is influenced by mandibular growth patterns. In patients with MPR, the lingual arch preserves arch length but the mesial migration of first permanent molars is not completely blocked.

Clinical effectiveness of space maintainers and space regainers in the mixed dentition: A systematic review

“…Most articles included in our systematic review found that a lower lingual holding arch (LLHA) tended to cause proclination and forward movement of the mandibular lower incisors which may have contributed to preservation of the arch length. Other studies in our review also found that arch length would be preserved whilst using a lower lingual holding arch space maintainer [16][17][18].…”

“…The majority of studies included in our review found a signi cant increase in intermolar, intercanine and interpremolar arch width after placing a space maintainer [16,17,19,20,24,26]. One reason for the increase in the intercanine width found in the aforementioned studies was the lateral migration of canines into the leeway space and developmental changes in arch dimension; [16,18] an explanation which was further supported by the nding that removable space maintainers resulted in an increase in the intercanine arch width when transitioning between primary and permanent canines [22]; while the increase in the inter-molar width was most probably attributed to biological mechanisms [17].…”

“…Finally, 11 articles were chosen to be included in this review. One of these articles was an RCT [16], one was a CCT study [17], 5 were case control studies [18][19][20][21][22], 4 were cohort studies [23][24][25][26], with two being a retrospective study [23,26].…”

“…The results of these studies showed mixed ndings regarding the preservation of arch length. Four of the 8 articles that focused on space maintainers showed that the use of lower lingual arch devices was effective in increasing arch length [16,18,19,26]. However, the four other articles that used lower lingual arch space maintainers reported a decrease in arch length following the placement of space maintainer devices [17,21,24,25].…”

Regression models of teleradiographic parameters according to the Jarabak method in young men and young women with orthognathic occlusion

“…In order to perform orthodontic treatment is primarily its planning with the use of clinical and instrumental examination [10,19]. One of the key places at this stage is the cephalometric analysis of lateral teleradiograms [6].…”