Ingela Karlsson1, Lars Bondemark. 1. National Health Service, Skane County Council, Orthodontics Clinic, Malmoe, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the maxillary molar distalization and anchorage loss in two groups, one before (MD 1 group) and one after (MD 2 group) eruption of second maxillary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a sample size calculation, 20 patients were recruited for each group from patients who fulfilled the following criteria: no orthodontic treatment before distal molar movement, Class II molar relationship defined by at least end-to-end molar relationship, space deficiency in the maxilla, and use of an intra-arch NiTi coil appliance with a Nance appliance to provide anchorage. Patients in the MD 1 group were without any erupted second molars during the distalization period, whereas in the MD 2 group both the first and second molars were in occlusion at start of treatment. The main outcome measures to be assessed were: treatment time, ie, time in months to achieve a normal molar relation, distal movement of maxillary first molars, and anterior movement of maxillary incisors (anchorage loss). The mean age in the MD 1 group was 11.4 years; in the MD 2 group, 14.6 years. RESULTS: The amount of distal movement of the first molars was significantly greater (P < .01) and the anchorage loss was significantly lower (P < .01) in the group with no second molars erupted. The molar distalization time was also significantly shorter (P < .001) in this group, and thus the movement rate was two times higher. CONCLUSIONS: It is more effective to distalize the first maxillary molars before the second molars have erupted.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the maxillary molar distalization and anchorage loss in two groups, one before (MD 1 group) and one after (MD 2 group) eruption of second maxillary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a sample size calculation, 20 patients were recruited for each group from patients who fulfilled the following criteria: no orthodontic treatment before distal molar movement, Class II molar relationship defined by at least end-to-end molar relationship, space deficiency in the maxilla, and use of an intra-arch NiTi coil appliance with a Nance appliance to provide anchorage. Patients in the MD 1 group were without any erupted second molars during the distalization period, whereas in the MD 2 group both the first and second molars were in occlusion at start of treatment. The main outcome measures to be assessed were: treatment time, ie, time in months to achieve a normal molar relation, distal movement of maxillary first molars, and anterior movement of maxillary incisors (anchorage loss). The mean age in the MD 1 group was 11.4 years; in the MD 2 group, 14.6 years. RESULTS: The amount of distal movement of the first molars was significantly greater (P < .01) and the anchorage loss was significantly lower (P < .01) in the group with no second molars erupted. The molar distalization time was also significantly shorter (P < .001) in this group, and thus the movement rate was two times higher. CONCLUSIONS: It is more effective to distalize the first maxillary molars before the second molars have erupted.