Abstract
Distalization with temporary anchorage devices (TADs) is commonly used to resolve crowding and to correct molar relationships in non-extraction cases. The purpose of this study was to quantify the treatment effects and post-treatment stability of total arch distalization with TADs in adults and thereby elucidate the clinical effect of this treatment modality. The subjects of the study were 39 adult orthodontic patients treated with total arch distalization with TADs. Lateral cephalograms and dental casts were taken at pretreatment (T0), post-treatment (T1), and the retention period (T2, 29.3 ± 12.8 months) to evaluate the vertical and horizontal movement of teeth, changes of arch width and molar rotation. It was concluded that even though there was a little relapse in the anteroposterior position of the maxillary and mandibular teeth during retention, there was no obvious relapse in the facial profile. Therefore, the total arch distalization can be used in patients with a moderate amount of arch length discrepancy effectively with stable retention.
Highlights
Premolar extraction is a method that has been continuously implemented since Tweed proposed to overcome the lack of dentoalveolar discrepancies
This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficiency of maxillary and mandibular total arch distalization by analyzing and investigating the stability of temporary anchorage devices (TADs)-assisted total arch distalization in adult patients
T2 lateral cephalometric radiographs and diagnostic casts revealed that all teeth underwent mesial drift during the retention period, whereby statistically significant mesial drift was observed in maxillary first molar crowns and maxillary second molar crowns and roots
Summary
Premolar extraction is a method that has been continuously implemented since Tweed proposed to overcome the lack of dentoalveolar discrepancies. In patients with moderate crowding, the selection of premolar extraction and non-extraction is made in consideration of the skeletal pattern of the patient and the effect on the facialesthetics. The main disadvantages of extraoral anchorage devices such as headgear are the need for patient compliance and the fact that they are esthetically unacceptable [5–7]. To overcome these limitations, many intraoral methods were used to distalize molars. Pendulums [8], distal jets [9], magnets [10], Franzulum appliances [11], and several other methods can be used as intraoral appliances; the common and unwanted side effects of intraoral appliances are anchorage loss at the reactive part, flaring of the incisors, distal tipping, and rotation of the distalized molars [12–15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
