Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and National Clinical Center for Oral Research, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023 Aug;164(2):226-238. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.12.013. Epub 2023 Apr 5.
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of different aligner anchorage preparations on mandibular first molars during premolar-extraction space closure with clear aligners and to assess the effects of different modes of Class II elastics on mandibular first molars.
Finite element models were constructed on the basis of cone-beam computed tomography data from an orthodontic patient. The models comprised maxilla, mandible, maxillary and mandibular teeth without first premolars, periodontal ligaments, attachments and aligners. Tooth displacement tendencies were calculated using different aligner anchorage preparations and Class II elastics on the models from the same patient. Three group sets were designed on the basis of the positions of aligner cutouts and buttons (mesiobuccal, distobuccal and lingual). Four groups were established in each of the 3 group sets. Four groups were created: (1) no elastic traction + no anchorage preparation, (2) anchorage preparation only, (3) elastic traction only, and (4) elastic traction + anchorage preparation. Different aligner anchorage preparations (0°, 1°, 2°, 3°) were applied on mandibular second premolars and molars. The Class II traction force was set to 100 g.
With clear aligners, mandibular first molars were subject to mesial tipping, lingual tipping and intrusion. In the condition of no elastic traction, aligner anchorage preparation resulted in distal tipping, buccal tipping, and extrusion effect on mandibular first molars. Aligner anchorage preparation was more effective in the distal and lingual cutout groups than in the mesial cutout group. In the condition of Class II elastic traction, the bodily movement of mandibular first molars was achieved with a 3° anchorage preparation for the mesial cutout group and a 1.7° anchorage preparation for distal and lingual cutout groups. Absolute maximal anchorage was achieved with a 2° anchorage preparation for distal and lingual cutout groups.
Clear aligner therapy caused mesial tipping, lingual tipping and intrusion of mandibular first molars during premolar-extraction space closure. Aligner anchorage preparation effectively prevented mesial and lingual tipping of mandibular molars. Distal and lingual cutout modes were more effective than mesial cutout modes in aligner anchorage preparation. For each aligner stage (0.25 mm), 1.7° aligner anchorage preparation and Class II elastics with distal or lingual cutouts led to the bodily movement of mandibular first molars, whereas 2° anchorage preparation reached absolute maximal anchorage.
本研究旨在确定在使用透明牙套进行前磨牙拔牙间隙关闭时,不同的牙套固位体准备对下颌第一磨牙的效果,并评估不同类型的 II 类橡筋对下颌第一磨牙的影响。
基于一位正畸患者的锥形束 CT 数据构建有限元模型。模型包括上颌、下颌、上颌和下颌无第一前磨牙、牙周韧带、附件和牙套的牙齿。使用同一患者模型上的不同牙套固位体准备和 II 类橡筋计算牙齿的位移趋势。根据牙套切迹和按钮的位置(近中颊侧、远中颊侧和舌侧),设计了三组。每组设四组。共建立了 4 组:(1)无弹性牵引+无固位体准备,(2)仅固位体准备,(3)仅弹性牵引,(4)弹性牵引+固位体准备。在下颌第二前磨牙和磨牙上应用不同的牙套固位体准备(0°、1°、2°、3°)。II 类牵引力设定为 100g。
使用透明牙套时,下颌第一磨牙出现近中倾斜、舌倾和内倾。在无弹性牵引的情况下,牙套固位体准备导致下颌第一磨牙远中倾斜、颊倾和外展效果。远中切迹组和舌侧切迹组的牙套固位体准备效果优于近中切迹组。在 II 类弹性牵引的情况下,近中切迹组的 3°固位体准备、远中切迹组和舌侧切迹组的 1.7°固位体准备实现了下颌第一磨牙的整体移动。远中切迹组和舌侧切迹组的 2°固位体准备达到了绝对最大固位。
在使用透明牙套进行前磨牙拔牙间隙关闭时,下颌第一磨牙出现近中倾斜、舌倾和内倾。牙套固位体准备可有效防止下颌磨牙的近中和舌倾。远中切迹组和舌侧切迹组的牙套固位体准备效果优于近中切迹组。对于每个牙套阶段(0.25mm),1.7°牙套固位体准备和带远中或舌侧切迹的 II 类橡筋导致下颌第一磨牙的整体移动,而 2°固位体准备达到绝对最大固位。