Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 1998 20(1):5-15; doi:10.1093/ejo/20.1.5
© 1998 by European Orthodontic Society
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Battagel, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ryan, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Battagel, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ryan, A
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Treatment changes in class I and mild class II malocclusions using the en masse removable appliance

JM BattagelZ and A RyanZZ

Z Department of Orthodontics, St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK ZZ Mortimer House, Shurlock Row, Berks, UK

The aim of this retrospective study was to examine the dental changes which occurred during buccal segment retraction in 39 subjects considered suitable for treatment with headgear to the maxillary dentition. Initially, a removable en masse appliance was fitted to stabilize the buccal segments. Once the molar relationship was corrected, fixed appliances were placed for upper arch consolidation and/or alignment. Only five subjects required lower appliance therapy.

Twenty nine individuals had upper second molars extracted as an adjunct to treatment: in the remaining 10 patients these teeth were left in situ, Corresponding lower second molars were extracted in 19 children, whilst 20 pairs of teeth were not removed. Measurements were made at the start of treatment, the completion of buccal segment retraction, and when active treatment was complete.

After the first stage, molars and premolars had been retracted nearly 4 mm, whilst the canines showed 2 mm spontaneous distal drift. The inter-molar width had increased by 4 mm and arch perimeter by 5 mm. There was a 5 per cent reduction in crowding. Spontaneous changes wore also seen in the lower arch, despite the absence of any therapy. Crowding was slightly improved and inter-molar width increased, apparently as a response to the expansion in the opposing jaw. At the end of treatment, upper arch retraction and expansion were reduced so the teeth were integrated with the lower dentition: the canines required less than 1 mm further retraction. In the lower arch, the expansion of the molars was essentially stable.

The extraction of upper second molars did not appear to influence the outcome of treatment. Although slightly more movement appeared to occur in the extraction group, few measurements showed statistical significance.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.