Dental, skeletal and soft tissue effects of the Distal Jet appliance: A prospective clinical study

Evaluating the efficacy and predictability of distalization protocols for maxillary molars in Class II treatment with clear Aligners: A narrative review

Introduction

Clear aligner therapy (CAT) has become a popular orthodontic treatment option for adolescent and adult patients for its aesthetic, patient's comfort, and convenient features. It involves a programmed and simulated virtual planning, tracking, and quantifying of tooth movement to target positions. Over the years, the therapeutic scope of CAT has increased dramatically to include a wider range of malocclusions with the aid of orthodontic auxiliaries as adjunctive biomechanics. This narrative review aims at summarizing and evaluating current practices, efficacy and predictability of sequential distalization protocol for maxillary molars in class II treatment using CAT.

Methods

A systematic search for this review included electronic literature databases of MEDLINE via Pubmed, Web of Science, ProQuest and Embase to include all available published articles including systematic reviews, books, cases reports, and narrative literature reviews.

Results

Most published studies are retrospective examining small sample size. Current literature should be interpreted carefully as studies differ in their outcome measurement process and timing. Although reports show 2-3 mm of molar distalization is possible, a distinguish between bodily movement and molar tip back should be made. There is a discrepancy between computer-assisted predicted outcome and actual clinical outcome reported in literature.

Conclusion

Molar distalization using CAT is possible. However, randomised trials with large sample size are necessary to draw more definitive conclusion about its efficacy and predictability. Due to the discrepancy between computer-assisted predicted outcome and actual clinical outcome, case refinement and possible altered treatment duration should be discussed with the patient in the planning stage. Since the process of molar distalization using CAT involves undesirable reaction force, it is essential to reinforce anchorage with suitable auxiliaries like composite attachments, class II/III elastics, and TADs.

Vertical Control in Molar Distalization by Clear Aligners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Molar distalization is used to correct molar relationships or to create space for mild anterior crowding. However, whether clear aligners can provide proper vertical control with the sequential distalization strategy has been highly debated. Thus, the current study aimed to systematically review the amount of dentoskeletal changes in the vertical dimension that results from sequential molar distalization in clear aligner therapy without temporary anchorage devices (TADs). Methods: Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023447211), relevant original studies were screened from seven databases and supplemented by a manual search by two investigators independently. Articles were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a risk of bias assessment was conducted for each included article. Relevant data were extracted from the included articles and meta-analysis was performed using RStudio. Results: Eleven articles (nine for maxillary distalization and two for mandibular distalization) were selected for the final review. All studies have a high or medium risk of bias. For maxillary molar distalization, the meta-analysis revealed 0.26 mm [0.23 mm, 0.29 mm] of maxillary first molar intrusion based on post-distalization dental model analysis, as well as 0.50 mm [-0.78 mm, 1.78 mm] of maxillary first molar intrusion and 0.60 mm [-0.42 mm, 1.62 mm] of maxillary second molar intrusion based on post-treatment lateral cephalometric analysis. Skeletally, there was a -0.33° [-0.67°, 0.02°] change in the SN-GoGn angle, -0.23° [-0.30°, 0.75°] change in the SN-MP angle, and 0.09° [-0.83°, 1.01°] change in the PP-GoGn angle based on post-treatment lateral cephalometric analysis. There was insufficient data for meta-analysis for mandibular molar distalization. Conclusions: No significant changes in vertical dimension were observed, both dentally and skeletally, after maxillary molar distalization with a sequential distalization strategy. However, further studies on this topic are needed due to the high risk of bias in the currently available studies.

Effect of Molar Distalization on Condyle-Glenoid Fossa Relationship

Objective

It is essential to be aware of the potential effects of orthodontic treatment on tissues and anatomical structures associated with the masticatory system, especially the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). Little information is available about the consequences of molar distalization on the TMJ. Therefore, this study is aimed at investigating the changes of the condyle-fossa relationship after molar distalization using the distal jet appliance.

Materials and Methods

The sample consisted of twenty-five patients (mean age 20.4 ± 2.6) who underwent molar distalization by the distal jet appliance. CBCT scans were taken before (T0) and after (T1) the completion of the molar distalization. Joint spaces (anterior, superior, and posterior) and cephalometric vertical angles (SN.GOME and Björk sum) were measured and compared at T0 and T1.

Results

Superior and posterior joint spaces increased significantly after molar distalization (PS 0.29 mm, P < 0.001, SS 0.06 mm, P < 0.5). Vertical cephalometric angles also increased after molar distalization by the distal jet appliance (SN.GOME 0.92°, Björk 1.11°).

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant increase in the superior and posterior joint spaces after molar distalization. However, this increase may not be of clinical importance. The vertical dimension has also increased.

Efficacy of clear aligners in producing molar distalization: Systematic review

Objectives:

The aim of this review is to systematically analyze the efficacy of molar distalization using clear aligners in non-growing Class II patients.

Materials and Methods:

A complete search across the electronic database through PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar, LILACS, and manual search of orthodontic journals were done till 2019. Studies were selected on the basis of PRISMA guidelines.

Results:

A total of four articles were included in this review. The amount of molar distalization reported was 2–3 mm.

Conclusion:

Out of the four studies included. In all the studies a significant amount of distalization was reported. Three retrospective studies concluded that distalization with aligners is the most effective of all tooth movements. One study concluded that aligners effectively achieved distalization with an efficacy of 87%, other two studies concluded that aligners effectively distalized the molars with good control over vertical dimension and mesiodistal tipping.

Comparison of the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with the cervical headgear and Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion patients: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes of patients with Class II malocclusion treated with cervical headgear and Jones Jig appliances, followed by fixed appliances.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The sample comprised 46 Class II malocclusion patients divided into two groups. Patients with Class II malocclusion based on the ANB angle and plaster model analyses, needing non-extraction orthodontic treatment, absence of mandibular crowding and no previous orthodontic treatment were eligible to be selected. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with cervical headgear (CH) followed by fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.26 years and group 2 consisted of 21 patients treated with the Jones Jig (JJ) appliance for a mean of 4.29 years. Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at the beginning and at the end of orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, t and Mann-Whitney tests were performed.

RESULTS

The cervical headgear group produced significantly greater maxillary anterior displacement restriction (SNA; CH: -0.97°±1.33; JJ: 0.07°±1.73; P=0.025), apical base discrepancy improvement (ANB; CH: -1.52°±1.25; JJ: 0.36°±1.46; P=0.006), FMA reduction (CH: -0.78°±2.68; JJ: 1.07°±2.84; P=0.028) and distal mandibular molar angulation (Md6.PM; CH: 6.97°±3.66; JJ: 2.77°±6.87; P=0.013) than the Jones Jig group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both distalizers followed by fixed appliances were effective to correct Class II malocclusion. The cervical headgear group presented skeletal effects with less treatment time and there were no significant intergroup differences regarding soft tissue changes.