口外弓推磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错12例临床分析

目的　研究口外弓推上颌磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错牙合后的组织变化。方法　用口外弓推磨牙远移治疗 12例安氏Ⅱ类错牙合。通过治疗前后X线测量及模型测量进行分析比较。结果　磨牙关系均被纠正至安氏Ⅰ类关系。结论　口外弓推磨牙远移配合方丝弓矫治器是矫治安氏Ⅱ类错牙合简便有效的方法之一     

口外弓推磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错牙合12例临床分析

目的　研究口外弓推上颌磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错牙合后的组织变化。方法　用口外弓推磨牙远移治疗 12例安氏Ⅱ类错牙合。通过治疗前后X线测量及模型测量进行分析比较。结果　磨牙关系均被纠正至安氏Ⅰ类关系。结论　口外弓推磨牙远移配合方丝弓矫治器是矫治安氏Ⅱ类错牙合简便有效的方法之一     

口外弓联合滑动杆与单纯口外弓远移6│6的比较研究

目的　研究口外弓结合滑动杆推上颌第一磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错牙合畸形磨牙远移的变化量。方法　 16例患者进行口外弓结合滑动杆与单纯口外弓推上颌第一磨牙远移的同体对照性研究 ,平均治疗 96 .37天 ,通过模型分析确定磨牙的移动量和扭转量。结果　口外弓结合滑动杆治疗侧磨牙均达安氏Ⅰ类关系 ,磨牙远移 3.0 0mm± 1.18mm ,而单纯口外弓治疗侧磨牙远移 0 .84mm± 0 .6 8mm(P <0 .0 1)。结论　口外弓结合滑动杆加速了磨牙远移的速度 ,同时兼有部分下颌磨牙的近中移动 ,加快了纠正磨牙安氏Ⅱ类牙合关系。     

口外弓推磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错殆12例临床分析

目的 研究口外弓推上颌磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类错殆后的组织变化。方法 用口外弓推磨牙远移治疗12例安氏Ⅱ类错he。通过治疗前后X线测量及模型测量进行分析比较。结果 磨牙关系均被纠正至安氏Ⅰ类关系。结论 口外弓推磨牙远移配合方丝弓矫治器是矫治安氏Ⅱ类错he简便有效的方法之一。     

口外弓推磨牙向后治疗安氏Ⅱ类1分类错(牙合)的分析研究

目的 :探讨口外弓推磨牙向后治疗安氏 II类 1分类错牙合的机制。方法 :对 12例安氏 II类 I分类错牙合的少年进行口外弓推磨牙向后治疗 ,第二期用方丝弓矫治器治疗 ;对两期相关的软硬组织进行 X线头影测量。结果 :口外弓推磨牙向后的治疗使颌骨、牙齿、软组织有不同程度的改变 ,主要通过抑制上颌骨 ,使下颌正常生长而使 ANB明显减小 ;口外力也使上中切牙倾斜度明显减小。方丝弓矫治器使治疗更完善。结论 :口外弓推磨牙向后配合方丝弓矫治器是不拔牙治疗安氏 II类 1分类错牙合简便有效的方法之一。     

改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ~1错19例报告

目的 :探讨改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ1错牙合的临床疗效。方法 :应用改良摆式矫治器及口外弓对 19例平均年龄 13 .4岁 ,第二磨牙已萌出的牙性安氏Ⅱ1错牙合进行治疗 ,进行矫治前后X线头影测量分析。结果 :改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓 ,能同时推第一、第二磨牙向远中移动 ,直至磨牙为Ⅰ类或偏近中关系 ,上颌磨牙平均每月向远中移动 1.3mm。并能同步打开咬合 ,导下颌向前。结论 :改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治牙性Ⅱ1错牙合是一种较好的方法。     

改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ1错（牙合）19例报告

目的:探讨改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ1错牙合的临床疗效.方法:应用改良摆式矫治器及口外弓对19例平均年龄13.4岁,第二磨牙已萌出的牙性安氏Ⅱ1错牙合进行治疗,进行矫治前后X线头影测量分析.结果:改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓,能同时推第一、第二磨牙向远中移动,直至磨牙为Ⅰ类或偏近中关系,上颌磨牙平均每月向远中移动1.3 mm.并能同步打开咬合,导下颌向前.结论:改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治牙性Ⅱ1错牙合是一种较好的方法.     

口外弓在治疗安氏Ⅱ1错(牙合)中的应用

安氏Ⅱ1错(牙合)是一种临床上常见的错(牙合)畸形,口外弓作为一种有效的推磨牙往远中装置,临床上用来矫治远中磨牙关系,以达到中性,减少安氏Ⅱ1错(牙合)的拔牙率.本文对处于生长发育期的安氏Ⅱ类1分类患者行口外弓配合方丝弓矫治技术,取得了较好的疗效.     

滑动杆与口外弓联合治疗安氏ⅡS错(牙合)畸形的X线头影测量分析

目的 研究口外弓结合滑动杆推上颌第一磨牙远移矫治安氏Ⅱ类亚类错(牙合)畸形磨牙远移的变化。方法 10例患者进行推上颌第一磨牙远移治疗前、后的X线头影对比研究。平均治疗101天,其测量值作统计学t检验。结果 磨牙均被纠正为安氏Ⅰ类关系。上颌磨牙平均远移3.78±2.02mm(P<0.01),同时伴有上颌磨牙的远中倾斜,平均3.2°±1.4°;下颌磨牙平均近移0.99±0.63mm(P<0.01)。给论 纠正磨牙关系为Ⅰ类关系有赖于一定比率的下颌磨牙近移。SNA角、SNB角、Y轴和PP/MP角的相对稳定,对颌骨无影响。     

改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ^1错He19例报告

目的：探讨改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治安氏Ⅱ^1错He的临床疗效。方法：应用改良摆式矫治器及口外弓对19例平均年龄13．4岁，第二磨牙已萌出的牙性安氏Ⅱ^1错He进行治疗，进行矫治前后X线头影测量分析。结果：改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓，能同时推第一、第二磨牙向远中移动，直至磨牙为Ⅰ类或偏近中关系，上颌磨牙平均每月向远中移动1．3mm。并能同步打开咬合，导下颌向前。结论：改良摆式矫治器联合口外弓矫治牙性Ⅱ^1错He是一种较好的方法。     

Effects of a segmented removable appliance in molar distalization

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 pre- and post-distalization records included lateral head films, study models and standard photographs. The findings were evaluated with a paired samples t-test. The average maxillary first molar distalization with the RMD was 3.98 mm, with 4.61 degrees of distal tipping. The maxillary second premolars drifted distally 2.13 mm on average with 1.54 degrees of distal tipping, while the maxillary first premolars showed 1.23 mm of mesial movement and 1.98 degrees of mesial tipping. The incisors protruded 1.09 mm with 1.27 degrees of labial tipping. The RMD was effective in distal molar movement and all patients attained a bilateral Class I molar relationship in an average period of 4.5 months. Hygiene problems and mucosal irritations, frequently found with fixed intraoral distalization techniques, were not observed during the distalization period.     

利用种植体支抗远移下颌磨牙的效果评价

目的：研究安氏Ⅲ类错患者中,采用微型种植体作支抗,远移下颌磨牙的临床效果及其作用特点。方法：选择16例成人患者,将32枚微型种植体植于下颌第二前磨牙与第一磨牙之间颊侧牙槽骨内,Ni-Ti螺旋弹簧压缩后置于下颌第一前磨牙与下颌第一磨牙之间,推磨牙远移。通过测量下颌第一磨牙在近远中方向、垂直向的位置变化,以衡量磨牙的位置改变。并通过下颌中切牙的位置变化,评价支抗强弱。结果：下颌第一磨牙平均远中移动4.5mm,疗程5.4个月,平均移动速度0.8mm/月;磨牙长轴向远中倾斜角度为3.9°。下颌中切牙位置基本无改变。结论：所有下颌磨牙被远移到了恰当的位置。未见前牙支抗丧失。种植体作支抗推下颌磨牙远移的过程中,发挥了强支抗的作用。临床操作较方便,是一种值得推广的方法。     

Intraosseous screw-supported upper molar distalization

The aims of the present study were to investigate (1) the efficiency of intraosseous screws for anchorage in maxillary molar distalization and (2) the sagittal and vertical skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes after maxillary molar distalization using intraosseous screw-supported anchorage. Twenty-five subjects (18 girls and seven boys; 11.3 to 16.5 years of age) with skeletal Class I, dental Class II malocclusion participated in the study. An anchorage unit was prepared for molar distalization by placing an intraosseous screw behind the incisive canal at a safe distance from the midpalatal suture following the palatal anatomy. The screws were placed and immediately loaded to distalize upper first molars or the second molars when they were present. The average distalization time to achieve an overcorrected Class I molar relationship was 4.6 months. The skeletal and dental changes were measured on cephalograms and dental casts obtained before and after the distalization. In the cephalograms, the upper first molars were tipped 8.8 degrees and moved 3.9 mm distally on average. On the dental casts, the mean distalization was five mm. The upper molars were rotated distopalatally. Mild protrusion (mean 0.5 mm) of the upper central incisors was also recorded. However, there was no change in overjet, overbite, or mandibular plane angle measurements. In conclusion, immediately loaded intraosseous screw-supported anchorage unit was successful in achieving sufficient molar distalization without major anchorage loss.     

Maxillary unilateral molar distalization with sliding mechanics: a preliminary investigation.

Fifteen patients, eight males and seven females with a mean age of 13.32 years, were selected for unilateral molar distalization. Dentally, all presented with a unilateral Class II molar relationship. The subjects were all in the permanent dentition with second molars erupted and with a well aligned lower dental arch. For maxillary molar distalization a new intra-oral appliance was developed, the Keles Slider, which comprised two premolar and two molar bands. The anchorage unit was a Nance button with an anterior bite plane. From the palatal side, the point of distal force application was carried towards the level of centre of resistance of the maxillary first molar. A Ni-Ti coil spring was used and 200 g distal force was applied to the Class II first molar. Lateral cephalograms were taken and analysed before and 2 months after molar distalization. The Class II molars were distalized bodily, on average, 4.9 mm (P < 0.001). Mesial migration of the Class II first premolars was 1.3 mm (P < 0.05), incisor protrusion was 1.8 mm (P < 0.05) and incisor proclination 3.2 degrees (P < 0.05). The overbite was reduced by 3.1 mm (P < 0.001) and the overjet increased 2.1 mm (P < 0.01). For stabilization, the corrected Class II unilateral molar relationship was maintained with a Nance button for 2 months. The results show that this newly developed device achieved bodily distal molar movement with minimum anchorage loss.     

An evaluation of the pendulum distalizingappliance

Interest in nonextraction therapy has accelerated the use and development of several molar distalizing appliances requiring minimal patient compliance. The Pendulum appliance, developed by Hilgers, has become one of the more popular designs. This study attempts to evaluate the performance of the Pendulum appliance in correcting Class II malocclusions via molar distalization. Seven patients were treated using this appliance. Lateral cephalographs were taken before treatment and immediately after removal of the appliance. Measurements were taken to evaluate molar movement and changes in angulation. Anchorage loss was measured by evaluating mesial incisor movement and angular changes. Changes in vertical dimension were also noted. Distalization occurred quite rapidly with overcorrection beyond a Class I molar relationship completed in an average time of 3.4 months. Mean distal movement of the upper first molars was 5.1 mm. This movement was accompanied by a mean change in angulation of 15.7°. Anchorage loss was evident with a mean increase in incisor angulation of 4.9° and an average advancement atthe incisal edge of 3.7 mm. Vertical dimension was virtually unaffected. This appliance was an effective means of distalizing molars into a Class I relationship with little patient cooperation. Some side effects were evident such as anchorage loss in the form of increased overjet and molar tipping. These side effects must be taken into account for when considering the use of this appliance.     

Unequal outer and inner bow configurations: comparing 2 asymmetric headgear systems.

INTRODUCTION: Asymmetric headgear is used when different molar distalization forces (MDF) are needed on the right and left sides of the jaw to correct a Class II molar relationship. METHODS: We investigated 2 asymmetric headgear configurations, the outer-bow and the inner-bow, on cervical-pull headgear. In the first configuration, 5 hooks were soldered on 1 side of the outer bow at 10-mm intervals, making this side shorter; in the other, 4 stops (1.5 mm) were added to 1 side of the inner bow, making this side longer. The right and left MDF and the extraoral force (EF) were measured simultaneously with 2 fork transducers and a testing machine, respectively. RESULTS: A 40-mm difference between the long and short outer bows resulted in a 2.17-fold greater MDF on the long-side molar (7:3 ratio). The 3-4 stop configuration provided the optimal inner-bow arrangement, with stop/no-stop MDF ratios of 7:3 and 10:0, respectively, at 10 N EF. At low-to-medium EF levels, a unilateral MDF developed on the stop side with zero MDF on the no-stop side. The sum of the right and left MDF nearly equaled the EF in the outer-bow asymmetry and was 60% in the inner-bow setting; this suggests strong lateral forces in the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically, for a bilateral unequal Class II relationship, the system of choice is outer-bow asymmetric headgear. For a unilateral Class II relationship with 1 side in a Class I molar relationship (Class II subdivision), inner-bow asymmetric headgear is recommended.     

Unilateral molar distalization with a modified slider

Although there are numerous publications on bilateral non-compliance molar distalization appliances, there is limited information on problems such as asymmetrical unilateral Class II malocclusions. The aim of the present investigation was to examine the distalization of molars unilaterally in patients with a unilateral Class II molar relationship utilizing a Keles Slider, designed without a bite plane. Ten girls (mean age 13.94 +/- 2.13 years) and seven boys (mean age 13.12 +/- 1.51 years) comprised the study material. Following insertion of the appliance, the patients were seen monthly and the screw was reactivated every 2 months. After a super-Class I molar relationship was achieved, the appliance was removed and the molars were stabilized with a Nance appliance for 2 months before the second-phase of orthodontic treatment. The Nance appliance was maintained in the palate until the end of canine distalization. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained before and immediately after insertion of the molar distalizer. The results showed that the maxillary first molars were distalized bodily on average by 2.85 mm. The maxillary first premolars moved forward bodily 2 mm and were extruded 2.03 mm. In all, 1.32 mm of protrusion, 1.12 mm of extrusion, and 1.79 degrees of proclination of the upper incisors were observed. The mandibular incisors and mandibular molars erupted 0.83 and 0.95 mm, respectively. The unilateral Keles Slider distalized molars successfully to a Class I molar relationship.     

Maxillary molar distalization with a bone-anchored pendulum appliance

To obtain an effective and compliance-free molar distalization without an anchorage loss, we designed the bone-anchored pendulum appliance (BAPA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability of the anchoring screw, distalization of the maxillary molars, and the movement of teeth anterior to maxillary first molars. The study group comprised 10 patients (mean age 13.5 +/- 1.8 years) with Class II molar relationship. A conventional pendulum appliance was modified to obtain anchorage from an intraosseous screw instead of the premolars. The screw was placed in the anterior paramedian region of the median palatal suture. Skeletal and dental changes were measured on cephalograms, and dental casts were obtained before and after distalization. A super Class I molar relationship was achieved in a mean period of 7.0 +/- 1.8 months. The maxillary first molars distalized an average of 6.4 +/- 1.3 mm in the region of the dental crown by tipping distally an average of 10.9 degrees +/- 2.8 degrees . Also, the maxillary second premolar and first premolar moved distally an average of 5.4 +/- 1.3 mm and 3.8 +/- 1.1 mm, respectively. The premolars tipped significantly distally. No anterior incisor movement was detected. The BAPA was found to be an effective, minimally invasive, and compliance-free intraoral distalization appliance for achieving both molar and premolar distalization without any anchorage loss.     

Distalization of maxillary first and second molars simultaneously with repelling magnets.

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.     

Nickel-titanium coil springs and repelling magnets: a comparison of two different intra-oral molar distalization techniques.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare two intra-oral molar distalization procedures, involving 15 cases with Class II molar relationships. Magnetic devices were applied to the upper right first molars in each case, while nickel-titanium coil springs were used against the upper left first molars, for a period of 3 months. Measurements were made from lateral cephalograms and from photocopies of models taken before and after the distalization procedure. Although upper molar distalization was achieved with ease in both techniques, nickel-titanium coil springs were found to be the more effective in terms of movement achieved.