Dataset Information

Anatomical limitations and factors influencing molar distalization.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To analyze the anatomical limitations and characteristics of maxillary and mandibular retromolar regions affecting molar distalization using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

A total of 120 qualifying patients were classified into equal groups of skeletal Class II and Class III and stratified by vertical growth pattern, age, sex, and third molar presence. The available distance along the axis of distalization and cortical bone thickness (CBT) were measured in the maxillary and mandibular retromolar regions of Class II and Class III patients, respectively. One-way analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of the factors on the measured data.

Results

The minimum available distance of the Class II maxilla was observed at a level 3 mm from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), while that of the Class III mandible was at a level 9 mm from the CEJ. The average available distance at the limit level was 4.06 ± 1.93 mm in the Class II maxilla, and the average corresponding CBT was 1.00 mm. The average available distance at the limit level in the Class III mandible was 2.80 ± 1.96 mm, and the corresponding CBT was 2.24 mm. In both skeletal Class II and Class III patients, hyperdivergent groups had the least available distance for molar distalization.

Conclusions

The limit for available distance in the Class II maxilla is closer to the coronal level, while that of the Class III mandible is closer to the apical level. A hyperdivergent growth pattern in a patient is indicative of less potential for molar distalization. Axial slices of CBCT images provide valuable evaluation for molar distalization regarding limit levels.

SUBMITTER: Hui VLZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9374358 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Anatomical limitations and factors influencing molar distalization.

Hui Victoria Lee Zhi VLZ Xie Yaxin Y Zhang Kaiwen K Chen Haoran H Han Wenze W Tian Ye Y Yin Yijia Y Han Xianglong X

The Angle orthodontist 20220523 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To analyze the anatomical limitations and characteristics of maxillary and mandibular retromolar regions affecting molar distalization using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A total of 120 qualifying patients were classified into equal groups of skeletal Class II and Class III and stratified by vertical growth pattern, age, sex, and third molar presence. The available distance along the axis of distalization and cortical bone thickness (CBT) w ...[more]

PMID: 35604682

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMaxillary molar distalization is a common technique used in the non-extraction treatment of Angle Class II malocclusion that can effectively correct the molar relationship and create spaces for anterior teeth alignment. However, this approach may also impact the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) due to predictable changes in the posterior vertical dimension. Despite its widespread use, Class II malocclusions correction by molar distalization with clear aligners has not been investigated for their effects on the TMJ. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the impact of sequential molar distalization using clear aligners on the TMJ.MethodsThree-dimensional CBCT scans of 23 non-growing patients (7 males, 16 females; mean age 29.8 ± 4.6 years) with skeletal class I or II malocclusion and a bilateral molar class II relationship treated by sequential upper molars distalization with orthodontic clear aligners (Invisalign, Align Technology, San Josè, Ca, USA). A total of 46 joints were examined before and after molar distalization using Anatomage InvivoDental 6.0.3. Linear and angular measurements of the mandibular joint were measured, including joint parameters, inclination, position, and the dimension of the condyle and articular fossa. In addition, 3D volumetric spaces of the joint were analyzed. All data were statistically analyzed by paired T test to determine the differences between the pre-and post-orthodontic procedures.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found in all primary effects resulting from maxillary molars distalization by clear aligners on TMJ components measurements and joint spaces between T0 and T1. Meanwhile, statistically significant differences were observed in the linear position of the upper molars and the molar relationship parameter with at least P ≤ 0.05.ConclusionTreatment by sequential upper molars distalization with clear aligners does not lead to significant TMJ parameters changes in condyle and fossa spaces, dimensions, and positions.

Project description:Background/objectivesTo compare the biomechanical characteristics of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners in conjunction with three types of miniscrew anchorage.Materials/methodsThree-dimensional (3D) finite element models of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners and three types of miniscrew anchorage were established, including (A) control group, (B) direct buccal miniscrew anchorage group, (C) direct palatal miniscrew anchorage group, and (D) indirect buccal miniscrew anchorage group. The 3D displacement of maxillary teeth and the principal stress (maximum tensile and compressive stress) on the root and periodontal ligament (PDL) during molar distalization were recorded.ResultsThe tooth displacement pattern during maxillary molar distalization in the four groups showed similarities, including labial tipping of anterior teeth, mesial and buccal tipping of premolars, and distal and buccal tipping of molars, but with varying magnitudes. Group C exhibited the greatest molar distalization, with the first molar achieving 0.1334 mm of crown distalization. Group D demonstrated a notable buccal crown movement (0.0682 mm) and intrusion (0.0316 mm) of the first premolar. Compared to Groups A and B, Groups C and D showed less labial crown tipping of the central incisor. Group B showed the greatest amount of maxillary incisor intrusion (central incisor: 0.0145 mm, lateral incisor: 0.0094 mm). Moreover, Groups C and D displayed significantly lower levels of compressive and tensile stress in the roots and PDL of the maxillary central and lateral incisors.LimitationMolar distalization is a dynamic process involving sequential tooth movement stages; however, our research primarily examined the tooth movement patterns in the initial aligner.Conclusions/implicationsThe use of miniscrew anchorage, especially direct palatal miniscrew anchorage, may enhance the treatment efficacy of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners, leading to increased molar distalization, reduced mesial movement of premolars, and minimized labial tipping of anterior teeth.

Project description:IntroductionThis study aims to investigate the biomechanical effects of anchorage reinforcement using clear aligners (CAs) with microimplants during molar distalization. And also explores potential clinical strategies for enhancing anchorage in the sequential distalization process.MethodsFinite element models were established to simulate the CAs, microimplants, upper dentition, periodontal ligament (PDL), and alveolar bone. In group set I, the 2nd molars underwent a distal movement of 0.25 mm in group set II, the 1st molars were distalized by 0.25 mm after the 2nd molars had been placed to a target position. Each group set consisted of three models: Model A served as the control model, Model B simulated the use of microimplants attached to the aligner through precision cuts, and Model C simulated the use of microimplants attached by buttons. Models B and C were subjected to a series of traction forces. We analyzed the effective contribution ratios of molar distalization, PDL hydrostatic stress, and von Mises stress of alveolar bone.ResultsThe distalization of the 2nd molars accounted for a mere 52.86% of the 0.25-mm step distance without any reinforcement of anchorage. The remaining percentage was attributed to the mesial movement of anchorage teeth and other undesired movements. Models B and C exhibited an increased effective contribution ratio of molar distalization and a decreased loss of anchorage. However, there was a slight increase in the undesired movement of molar tipping and rotation. In group set II, the 2nd molar displayed a phenomenon of mesial relapse due to the reciprocal force produced by the 1st molar distalization. Moreover, the efficacy of molar distalization in terms of contribution ratio was found to be positively correlated with the magnitude of force applied. In cases where stronger anchorage reinforcement is required, precision cuts is the superior method.ConclusionsThe utilization of microimplants in conjunction with CAs can facilitate the effective contribution ratio of molar distalization. However, it is important to note that complete elimination of anchorage loss is not achievable. To mitigate undesired movement, careful planning of anchorage preparation and overcorrection is recommended.

Dataset Information

Anatomical limitations and factors influencing molar distalization.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Anatomical limitations and factors influencing molar distalization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets