Multidisciplinary management of permanent first molar extractions

Evaluation of the effects of semipontic design on tooth movements during mesialization of mandibular second molar performed with clear aligner treatment by finite element analysis

INTRODUCTION

Loss of the mandibular first molar is common in orthodontic patients. One treatment option is the mesialization of the second and third molars. This study aimed to investigate the displacement and type of movement in the second molar during mandibular second molar mesialization with clear aligner treatment using finite element analysis in configurations with or without pontic, semipontic, and anatomic pontic for the edentulous space.

METHODS

Mesialization of the mandibular second molar with clear aligner treatment was simulated using the AlGOR Fempro program (ALGOR, Inc, Pa) with 3 different configurations.

RESULTS

In the transverse direction, the highest rotation occurred in the anatomic pontic model, whereas the lowest rotation was in the semipontic model. In the sagittal axis, although tooth movement was realized by tipping in all scenarios, the semipontic model showed the closest movement to translation because of a higher rate of crown-root movement. In the vertical axis, although extrusion occurred in all configurations, the semipontic model showed the least extrusion forces, whereas the anatomic pontic model showed the most.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesiobuccal rotation, mesial tipping, and extrusion were observed in all models. However, the semipontic design had the closest movement to translational. Further randomized, controlled clinical trials are needed to evaluate the effects of different pontic designs on tooth movements.

Non-compliance treatment in a young adult full-step class II division 2 malocclusion with preadjusted lingual appliance and upper first molars extractions

This case report describes a complex full-step class II case in a young adult patient treated with lingual straight-wire appliance and upper first molar extraction. As the patient refused a surgical treatment, she was offered the best possible camouflage with the double aim of obtaining an ideal occlusal relationship and maintaining the profile; appropriate biomechanical strategies, including extraction choice and anchorage control during space closure, were needed to achieve the planned results. This case report demonstrates the possibility of successfully resolving severe sagittal discrepancies in an adult patient without surgical treatment by means of a completely invisible non-compliance technique, with the extraction of the most compromised teeth. This report also underlines the need for careful planning during both diagnostic and treatment phases, in order to obtain the best results.

Alveolar bone loss and root resorption in mesialized second molars in mandibular first molar extraction cases as compared to contralateral non-extraction side in young adults: A retrospective cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The alveolar bone loss (ABL) and external apical root resorption (EARR) depict the safety of mesialization of mandibular second molars into the extraction space of mandibular first molars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ABL and EARR after closure of mandibular first molar extraction space by mesialization of second molar on extraction side (ES) as compared to the contralateral non-extraction side (NES).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out using the pre and posttreatment orthodontic records of young adults with complete set of permanent dentitions treated with extraction of unilateral mandibular first molar and non-extraction treatment on the contralateral side. All patients underwent mini-implant supported mesialization of second molar on ES. The ABL and EARR of second molar on ES and contralateral NES were measured on digital orthopantomograms. The ABL and EARR of second molars on ES and contralateral NES were compared using independent sample t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 36 subjects (14 males and 22 females) were included in the study. The mean treatment duration for molar mesialization was 28.75±8.05months. The mean crown and root movements of mandibular second molar on ES were 10.94±1.25mm and 9.04mm±1.14mm, as compared to 0.91±1.01mm and 0.77±0.83mm on contralateral NES, respectively. The mean ABL and EARR at mandibular second molar were found to be significantly greater on the ES than the contralateral NES (P<0.001 and<0.05, respectively). A total of seven patients (19.4%) experienced ABL≥1mm on ES as compared to none in the contralateral NES. EARR of>2mm of at least one root was found in seven patients (19.4%) in ES as compared to four (11%) in contralateral NES.

CONCLUSION

There was small but statistically significant difference in the ABL and EARR of mesialized mandibular second molar at first molar ES as compared to the contralateral NES. For majority of patients this difference was small but few isolated cases experienced severe ABL and EARR.

Accumulated biomechanical effects of mandibular molar mesialization using clear aligners with auxiliary devices: an iterative finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

The biomechanics generated by the clear aligner (CA) material changes continuously during orthodontic tooth movement, but this factor remains unknown during the computer-aid design process and the predictability of molars movement is not as expected. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to propose an iterative finite element method to simulate the long-term biomechanical effects of mandibular molar mesialization (MM) in CA therapy under dual-mechanical systems.

METHODS

Three groups including CA alone, CA with a button, and CA with a modified lever arm (MLA) were created. Material properties of CA were obtained by in vitro mechanical experiments. MM was conducted by the rebound force exerted by CA material and the mesial elastic force (2N, 30° to the occlusal plane) applied to the auxiliary devices. Stress intensity and distribution on periodontal ligament (PDL), attachment, button and MLA, and displacement of the second molar (M2) during the iterations were recorded.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the initial and cumulative long-term displacement. Specifically, compared to the beginning, the maximum stress of PDL decreased by 90% on average in the intermediate and final steps. The aligner was the main mechanical system at first, and then, the additional system exerted by the button and MLA dominated gradually. The stress of attachments and auxiliary devices is mainly concentrated on their interfaces with the tooth. Additionally, MLA provided a distal tipping and extrusive moment, which was the only group that manifested a total mesial displacement of the root.

CONCLUSIONS

The innovatively designed MLA was more effective in reducing undesigned mesial tipping and rotation of M2 than the traditional button and CA alone, which provided a therapeutic method for MM. The proposed iterative method simulated tooth movement by considering the mechanical characteristic of CA and its long-term mechanical force changes, which will facilitate better movement prediction and minimize the failure rate.

Eruption Pattern of Third Molars in Orthodontic Patients Treated with First Permanent Molar Extraction: A Longitudinal Retrospective Evaluation

The aim of this study was to evaluate angular and positional changes in the second (M2) and third molars (M3) of orthodontically treated patients undergoing a first molar (M1) extraction. A retrospective longitudinal study with a sample of 152 pre- and post-treatment panoramic radiographs was conducted. Thirty-nine patients (51.3%) were orthodontically treated with M1 extraction and thirty-seven (48.7%) were treated without extraction. Angulations of M2 and M3 relative to the infraorbital (IOP) and the palatal planes (PP) were measured and compared between the groups before orthodontic treatment (T1) and after the completion of orthodontic space closure (T2). The prognosis of M3 eruptions was evaluated by assessing their horizontal and vertical position (inclination) using different classification systems. The angular (p < 0.001) and inclination improvement (p < 0.01) of the maxillary M3 was significant for the M1 extraction group. The mandibular M3 inclination significantly improved (p < 0.01), whereas the groups' angulation and vertical position were not significantly different. These findings suggest that extraction therapy has a favorable effect on the maxillary M2 and M3 angulation, but not on the mandibular. M1 extraction showed a signi- ficant effect on the horizontal position of M3 and thus may improve the eruption space and prognosis.

Comparison between orthodontic and surgical uprighting of mandibular molars: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the efficiency of orthodontic treatment and surgical uprighting of first and second mandibular molars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Google Scholar, as well as a hand search was conducted by two independent researchers to identify relevant articles up to January 2022. In addition, a manual search was done that included article reference lists, grey literature, and dissertations. The risk of bias of the included prospective and retrospective studies was assessed with the Risk Of Bias Tool In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool.

RESULTS

A total of six nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCT) evaluating the efficiency of mandibular molar orthodontic and/or surgical uprighting were included. The quality analysis showed certain defects of the Non-RCTs included and, according to the criteria used, the majority of the articles were judged to be of moderate quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence, orthodontic and surgical uprighting appear to be effective treatment methods for mandibular molars. Surgical uprighting may be associated with more complications than orthodontic uprighting. However, the existing literature on the subject is limited, heterogeneous, and methodologically limited. Therefore, the outcomes should be interpreted carefully.

The impact of the loss of first permanent molars on the duration of treatment in patients treated with orthodontic space closure and without skeletal anchorage

Background

This study aims to evaluate the impact of the loss of permanent molars on the duration of orthodontic treatment for space closure and without skeletal anchorage.

Methods

Records at the beginning (T0) and the end (T1) of orthodontic treatment were selected retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: loss of molar (n = 19) and control, without loss (n = 24). The impact of loss on treatment time was assessed using multiple linear regression adjusted for the number of absences, bonding failures, age, sex, PAR index at T0 and T1 at p<0.05. Treatment time was also evaluated by the number of losses and which arches were involved (upper, lower). The systematic and random errors for the PAR index were verified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Dahlberg formula, respectively.

Results

A small random error (1.51) and excellent replicability (ICC = 99.6) were observed. Overall average treatment time was 22.5 months (± 7.95) for the group without loss and 44.7 months (± 17.3) with a loss. Treatment time was longer in cases where there was a higher number of missing molars and when both arches were involved. In addition to the loss (β = 4.25, p < 0.001), the number of missed appointments (β = 2.88, p < 0.001) had a significant effect and increased treatment time. Bonding failures, gender, age, and PAR index at T0 and T1 were not significantly associated with treatment time in the multivariate model (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Loss of the first permanent molar has a negative impact on orthodontic treatment time in cases of space closure. The treatment time is longer when there are more tooth losses and arches involved. Treatment time also increases with greater numbers of missed clinical appointments.

Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions

The aim of the present retrospective study was evaluating skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes of two groups of Class II patients orthodontically treated with extractions of upper first premolars (U4 group) and upper first molars (U6 group). In total, 21 patient records (9M and 12F; mean age 12.5 ± 1.2 years) were selected for the U4 group, and 38 patient records (17M and 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) were recruited for the U6 group. Twenty cephalometric variables were analysed on standardised lateral cephalograms at baseline (T0) and at the end of orthodontic treatment (T1). Means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for both groups and increments were calculated. After revealing the normal distribution of data with the Shapiro–Wilk test, Student’s t-test was used to compare variables at T0 between groups. A paired t-test was used to analyse changes between time points within each group, and Student’s t-test to compare differences between groups at T1. Both groups showed a significant increase in the distance among upper second molars and the vertical pterygoid line (PTV-maxillary second molar centroid U6 group: 6.66 ± 5.00 mm; U4 group: 3.66 ± 2.20 mm). Moreover, the distance of upper incisors to the palatal plane significantly increased (PP-maxillary incisor tip U6 group: 1.09 ± 1.52 mm; U4 group: 0.20 ± 2.00 mm; p = 0.061). Significant changes were found for overjet (U6 group: −4.86 ± 1.62 mm; U4 group: −3.27 ± 1.90 mm; p = 0.001). The distance between upper lip and esthetic plane showed a significantly reduction in both groups (ULip-E Plane U6 group: −2.98 ± 1.65 mm; U4 group: −1.93 ± 1.57 mm). No statistically significant changes were found in sagittal or vertical skeletal values. The significantly larger reduction of upper lip protrusion and overjet in the U6 group compared to the U4 group suggests preferring molar extraction treatment for severe Class II with protrusive soft tissues’ profile and increased overjet. Since no differences on vertical values were found, an increased SN^GoGn angle should not be considered a discriminating factor for choosing molar extraction treatment.