Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 2000 22(6):683-695; doi:10.1093/ejo/22.6.683
© 2000 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 (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bondemark, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bondemark, L
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

A comparative analysis of distal maxillary molar movement produced by a new lingual intra-arch Ni-Ti coil appliance and a magnetic appliance

L Bondemark

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

The aim of the study was to evaluate cephalometrically the dental and skeletal treatment effects of a new lingual intra-arch Ni-Ti coil appliance for molar distalization and to compare these with those of an established intra-arch appliance that uses repelling magnets for distal molar movement.

Two groups of 21 adolescents, all girls, participated in this retrospective study. One group was treated with the new lingual Ni-Ti coil appliance for 6.5 months and the other with the magnetic appliance for 5.8 months. The treatment effects were analysed by measurements on lateral head radiographs at the start of treatment and after the molar distalization was completed.

The mean amount of distal molar movement was 2.5 mm (SD 0.69) in the lingual coil group and 2.6 mm (SD 0.51) in the magnet group. A significantly higher degree of distal molar tipping was found in the magnet group, -8.8 degrees, compared with -2.2 degrees for the lingual coil group. Due to anchorage loss, the maxillary incisors moved forwards, and the overjet was increased by an average of 1.2 mm in the lingual coil group and 1.7 mm in the magnet group.

The results indicate that the new lingual Ni-Ti coil appliance was better choice than the magnet appliance for distal bodily movement of maxillary molars. The benefits of the new Ni-Ti appliance were due to the design preventing molar tipping and its single activation.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
G. S. M. Kinzinger, M. Eren, and P. R. Diedrich
Treatment effects of intraoral appliances with conventional anchorage designs for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization. A literature review
Eur J Orthod, September 27, 2008; (2008) cjn047v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Akin, A. U. Gurton, and D. Sagdic
Effects of a segmented removable appliance in molar distalization
Eur J Orthod, February 1, 2006; 28(1): 65 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.