Nonextraction methods for creating space in orthodontic therapy (original) (raw)

Effects of a segmented removable appliance in molar distalization

The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2005

The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar treatment effects of a segmented removable appliance [removable molar distalizer (RMD)] for molar distalization. The study was conducted on 28 patients (12 females and 16 males), with a mean age of 11.8 years. All presented with a skeletal Class I malocclusion and a bilateral dental Class II molar relationship. The preand post-distalization records included lateral head fi lms, study models and standard photographs. The fi ndings were evaluated with a paired samples t-test.

Molar distalization – A review

Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research, 2018

Esthetics plays a major role from orthodontic treatment to results. Gaining space in dental arch is the most important step in the treatment planning which can be achieved by different methods one of which is molar distalisation. To distalise molars in upper arch using non-extraction treatment, various appliances have been invented. The first attempt for this technique was the use of headgear appliance, but this needed patient compliance and was esthetically unpleasing. Thus, various intra-oral devices were introduced for molar distalisation.

A Review of Molar Distalisation Techniques

Maxillary molar distalization has been used in orthodontics for over 100 years. This technique has been used to gain space in the maxillary arch for relief of crowding, correction of a Class II molar relationship and reduction of an increased overjet. A plethora of appliances have been developed over the years with each having advantages and disadvantages. This article details the indications and contra-indications for maxillary molar distalization and details the various appliances that are available to clinicians, presenting the available evidence supporting the use of these various appliances. Clinical Relevance: Clinicians should be familiar with the clinical indications for maxillary molar distalization, the potential unwanted effects and how these can be minimized. Clinicians should also appreciate how molar distalization can be incorporated with other aspects of orthodontic care.

Non-extraction Orthodontic Treatment with Molar Distalization

Journal of Orofacial Research, 2012

A case report of 16 years female who reported to department with chief complaint of irregularly placed front teeth and an unpleasant smile. Patient was diagnosed with class II div 2 malocclusion with arch length discrepancy of 8.5 mm in maxilla with buccally placed maxillary canines. Molar distalization technique was planned using pendulum appliance. Molars were distalized by 5 mm in the right, 6 mm in left maxillary arch. Crowding was relieved effectively utilizing space created by molar distalization. Class I molar and canine relation was achieved and maxillary arch was aligned in 7 months.

Case Series Intraoral Approaches for Maxillary Molar Distalization: Case Series

One of the traditional approaches for Class II molar correction and space gaining is distalization, which can be obtained with either Intraoral Appliances (IOA) or Extraoral Appliances (EOA). Nowadays non-extraction approach in correcting Class II malocclusion is gaining a lot of attention. Distalization of maxillary molars with intraoral appliances is one such approach. Distalization procedures have been much refined over the years by a better understanding of bone physiology, tooth movement, biomechanics and newer biomaterials. Clinicians prefer IOA as compared to the EOA to achieve distal molar movement, the reason being IOA depends minimally on patient cooperation. The designing of IOA incorporate two elements: the active unit that distalize the maxillary molars and the anchorage one that countervail for the reciprocally acting force system. The anchorage unit is a collaboration of dental anchorage and soft tissue rests or absolute different skeletal anchorage systems [1]. The present case series presents the efficacy of Jones Jig, Lokar distalizer and Carrière distalizer in Class II malocclusion patients with a mean age of 16 years (age range of 15-17 years) who reported with the chief complaint of irregular upper/lower front teeth. CASE 1 A 15-year-old female patient reported to the Department of Orthodontics with a chief complaint of forwardly placed upper front teeth. Intraoral clinical and radiographic examination revealed skeletal Class I jaw relationship with Angle's Class II subdivision left malocclusion. She had proclined and moderately crowded upper and lower anteriors with ankylosed left lower central incisor and missing right lower central incisor. Soft tissue profile indicated a straight profile with competent lips. Treatment involved correction of molar relationship by distalization with the help of Jones Jig appliance, extraction of ankylosed 31 and its replacement with a fixed bridge (implant was not placed as patient was not willing for it due to financial constraints) and correction of exhibited malocclusion using comprehensive fixed orthodontic mechanotherapy with pre-adjusted edgewise appliance. (Roth prescription, 0.022 slot). The lower arch was completely bonded and the upper arch was partially bonded with brackets only on the upper central incisors and lateral incisors. Bilateral distalization of the upper maxillary molars was initiated after the placement of the Jones Jig appliance to create space and align the upper incisor teeth [Table/Fig-1]. The distalization of the molars took about nine months and the total treatment time was about 18 months with the complete leveling and aligning of the upper and lower arches and attainment of Class I molar and canine relationships [Table/Fig-2]. AbStrACt Correction of Class II malocclusion by distalization of maxillary molars with intraoral appliances is a non-extraction treatment approach, which has been described as an alternative to Head Gear. From the past few years, the procedures have undergone rectification to achieve treatment objective more precisely. This has been made possible by a better understanding of bone physiology, tooth movement, biomechanics and newer biomaterials. Nowadays newer distalizing appliances, like the Jones Jig, Lokar distalizer and Carrière distalizer, have been developed which have compact designs and cause minimal discomfort to the patient. Refinement in these appliances is concentrated mainly on achieving bodily movement of the molar rather than simple tipping. These appliances are also operator friendly as these are easy to insert and remove. The present case series presents the efficacy of these appliances in Class II malocclusion patients with a mean age of 16 years (age range of 15-17 years) that reported with the chief complaint of irregular upper front teeth, since non-extraction approach in correcting Class II malocclusion is gaining a lot of attention.

Upper molar distalization: a critical analysis

Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, 2002

Traditional upper molar distalization techniques require patient cooperation with the headgear or elastics. Recently, several different intraoral procedures have been introduced to minimize the need for patient cooperation. This article reviews the appliances currently available for maxillary molar distalization and critically analyses their dentoalveolar and skeletal effects.

INTRAORAL MOLAR DISTALIZATION APPLIANCES: A REVIEW.

International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 2019

Recently there has been an increase in demand toward various conservative treatment methods to avoid extraction of healthy teeth and to increase patient compliance. Eliminating the need of extraction involves the correction of malocclusion which will result in improvement in facial profile, aesthetics and smile without loss of permanent tooth/teeth. In cases with minimal arch length discrepancy and angles class II molar relationship with orthognathic mandible and maxilla, distalization of molars creates additional space within the arch. Many appliances for class II correction need patient compliance, for example, headgears, elastics, etc. which may delay treatment results if the patient does not follow the instructions. Therefore there is a need for appliances which reduces patient compliance and gives effective results. This article reviews various intraoral appliances and methods for molar distalization.

Distalization of Mandibular Molar Using Modified Mandibular Molar Distalizer Appliance

Intraoral molar distalization appliances that require little or no patient compliance as an alternative to extraoral appliances. This article presents a simple, effective, alternative method for distalization of mandibular molar that allows correction of malocclusion. Patient was selected with mesially tipped mandibular molar with the age of 12 years. Modified mandibular molar distalizer made up of acrylic button incorporating wire components and open coil NiTi spring. Modified mandibular molar distalizer appliance contributes in correction of mesially tipped mandibular first molar by uprighting and distal movement of molar without proclination of lower anteriors. Modified mandibular molar distalizer appliance's versatility, effectiveness, ease of fabrication with minimum cost and compliance free. Three dimensional molar controls achieved throughout distalization therapy and maximum anchorage preservation throughout treatment. Appliance was effective in producing distalization o...