Gastric bypass revisional surgery: percentage total body weight loss differences among three different techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal weight loss or weight regain may occur after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). For this reason, revisional surgery has gained increasing interest. We aimed to compare the percentage of total body weight loss (%TBWL) at one-year follow-up among three different techniques: Jejuno-jejunostomy distalization (JJD), Sleeve resection of the gastrojejunostomy and gastric pouch (SRGJP), and the combination of both (JJD + SRGJP). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent revisional surgery after RYGB (2020-2021). The cohort was stratified by the type of revisional technique performed. Postoperative bariatric outcomes and nutritional deficiencies were compared among groups. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients underwent revisional surgery after RYGB: JJD was performed in 8 (10.3%), SRGJP in 34 (43.6%), and JJD + SRGJP in 36 (46.1%) patients. The most common indication for surgery was weight regain, in 72 (92.3%) patients. The median lengths of the BP limbs before and after distalization, were 50 cm (IQR 40-75 cm) and 175 cm (IQR 150-200 cm), respectively. The median length of the new common limb (NCL) and total alimentary limb length (TALL) were 277 cm (IQR 250-313 cm) and 400 cm (IQR 375-475 cm), respectively. Median percentage of total body weight loss (%TBWL) at one year was 15% (IQR 15-19%) for JJD, 20% (IQR 13-26%) for SRGJP, and 21% (IQR 15- 28%) for JJD + SRGJP (p = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the combined procedure (JJD + SRGJP) exhibited higher %TBWL at one year, however no statistically significant difference was identified among the three techniques.

Boundary of mandibular molar distalization in orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To explore the mandibular retromolar space length (MRSL), initial root-inner cortex contact percentage (IRCCP), and the various factors that influence mandibular molar distalization. Searches were undertaken in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and grey literature (Google Scholar and OpenGrey) for eligible cross-sectional observational studies measuring the MRSL and IRCCP in healthy adult patients. The risk of bias and evidence quality were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's checklist and GRADE framework. Thirteen studies involving 1169 patients were included for qualitative synthesis. Seven of these studies were eligible for quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis showed that the mean MRSL at the subfurcation-6 mm plane in Asian normodivergent cases was 3.78 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.81-4.35; I2 = 79.7%) for skeletal Class-I malocclusions, 3.02 mm (95% CI: 2.10-3.94; I2 = 62.5%) for Class-II, and 4.43 mm (95% CI: 3.14-5.73; I2 = 75.1%) for Class-III. The mean MRSL at the sub-cementoenamel junction (CEJ)-10 mm plane for Asian, Class-I, normodivergent cases was 3.28 mm (95% CI: 2.44-4.12; I2 = 68.9%). The mean IRCCP for Asian, Class-I, normodivergent cases was 27.2% (95% CI: 0.22-0.32; I2 = 0%). In Asian normodivergent cases, MRSL ranges from 3.28 to 4.43 mm with a 27.2% IRCCP for Class-I. Cone-beam computed tomography imaging is recommended for measuring the MRSL in the apex region particularly before molar distalization. Factors influencing MRSL and IRCCP include different races, skeletal patterns, facial types, and third-molar status.

Molar distalization in orthodontics: a bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study endeavors to undertake a bibliometric analysis on molar distalization, with the objective of illuminating its evolutionary trajectory, current status, and prognosticating future research hotspots and trends. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive exploration of the literature on molar distalization was carried out by conducting a search in the Web of Science (WOS) core database of the University of Hong Kong Electronic Library. The search for topic terms employed included "molar distalization," "molar distalisation," "move molar distally," "molar distal movement," and "molar backwards." The search results were subsequently subjected to meticulous analysis using CiteSpace software. This analysis encompassed various facets such as the citation count; the geographical distribution of the countries, institutions, and journals responsible for publishing the articles; the distribution of the authors; the utilization of keywords within the articles; and the analysis of references. RESULTS: A total of 516 articles were included in the analysis. The top 5 countries in terms of the number of published papers were the United States (USA), South Korea, Turkey, Italy, and Germany, and the top 5 institutions in terms of the number of published papers were Kyung Hee University, A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, and Universidade de Sao Paulo. The top 5 authors in terms of the number of published papers were Park, Kook, Bayome, Janson, and Lee. There was little cooperation overall. The top 3 journals in terms of the most published related articles were all orthodontic-related journals. After molar distalization and anchorage, the most frequently used keywords were distalization, movement, and pendulum appliance. Kinzinger GSM is the most frequently cited author in references, and one of his articles also has the highest centrality score in references. CONCLUSIONS: As the tides of time shift and scholars display an ever-growing dedication to unraveling the intricacies of this therapeutic modality, the realm of molar distalization has undergone notable advancements in technology. Initially, the traditional appliance suffered from aesthetic drawbacks and discomfort. However, contemporary iterations of the appliance have transcended these limitations, boasting enhanced elegance and convenience while concurrently elevating their efficacy. Nevertheless, limitations of current appliances, including their durability and propensity for recurrence post-treatment, continue to necessitate further advancement. Hence, the ongoing scientific inquiry aims to delve deeper into refining treatment modalities and fabricating cutting-edge appliances within this realm. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study holds the potential to significantly enhance the ability of orthodontists to devise treatment protocols and offer state-of-the-art clinical recommendations, thereby empowering them to deliver advanced and refined orthodontic interventions.

Evaluation of the effect of extraction in comparison to distalization on the maxillary third molars in class II malocclusion: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of first premolar extraction versus distalization on the vertical position and mesiodistal angulation of maxillary third molars (MxM3) in adolescent class II patients. METHODS: The panoramic x-rays (OPGs) of 200 adolescent class II patients with developing MxM3s were screened. The chosen sample consisted of 2 groups: Group 1 (Distalization) comprising 48 MxM3s, and Group 2 (Extraction) comprising 50 MxM3s. The pre- and post-treatment OPGs were traced to detect the mesiodistal angulation changes of the second molars (MxM2) and MxM3s. RESULTS: The angulation and vertical position of the MxM3s at T0 & T1 were also evaluated using Archer's classification. The distalization group presented a non-significant decrease in the mean angulation of MxM2 and MxM3 (-2.4o & -4.5o uprighting respectively). In the extraction group, both MxM2 and MxM3 presented a highly significant decrease in the mean angulation (-10.5o & -11o uprighting respectively). The angulation and vertical position change of MxM3 significantly improved in the extraction group when compared to the distalization group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Significant uprighting and occlusal positioning of the maxillary third molars occurred in the premolar extraction treatment group when compared to the distalization treatment group. The results of the current study highlight the importance of recognizing maxillary third molars during orthodontic treatment planning of Class II malocclusion cases.

The effectiveness of the total-maxillary-arch-distalization approach in treating class II division 1 malocclusion: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess the effect of total maxillary arch distalization (TMAD) treatment on the dental, skeletal, soft tissues, and airways during non-extraction camouflage treatment of class II division 1 patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the published data in four electronic databases up to April 2023. We considered studies for inclusion if they were examining the effects of TMAD during treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion in the permanent dentition. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and assessment of the strength of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool were performed in duplicate. RESULTS: Out of the 27 articles that met the initial eligibility criteria, 19 studies were finally selected. Fair to relatively good quality evidence was identified after the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. Out of the 19 selected studies, 5 studies used inter-radicular TADs, 10 studies used modified C- palatal plate (MCPP), 3 studies used infra zygomatic crest (IZC) TADs, 1 study compared buccal TADs versus MCPP, and 1 study compared between cervical headgear and MCPP. The maximum amount of maxillary arch distalization using buccal TADs, MCPP, IZC TADs, and headgear was 4.2mm, 5.4mm, 5mm, and 2.5mm respectively. Different results regarding the amount of dental, skeletal, and soft tissue changes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The current low to very low certainty level of evidence suggests that TMAD is effective in camouflaging class II division 1 malocclusion. Future well-conducted and clearly reported randomized controlled trials that include a control group are needed to make robust recommendations regarding the effect of TMAD with different appliances on dental, skeletal, and soft tissue structures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: TMAD should be given priority with caution in class II patients who refuse the extraction of premolars. TMAD may be considered an adjunctive approach to solve cases associated with high anchorage need or anchorage loss.

Can we separately measure glenoid vs. humeral lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) can be measured on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs using 2 previously described angles: lateralization shoulder angle (LSA) and distalization shoulder angle (DSA). However, these 2 angles measure global lateralization and distalization but do not allow to differentiate how much lateralization or distalization are attributable to the glenoid and the humerus. We hypothesized that new angles could allow us to separately measure glenoid vs. humeral lateralization and distalization. A more precise understanding of independent glenoid and humeral contributions to lateralization and distalization may be beneficial in subsequent clinical research. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of postoperative AP radiographs of 100 patients who underwent primary RSA for cuff-tear arthropathy, massive cuff tear, or glenohumeral osteoarthritis were analyzed. The new angles that we proposed use well-known bony landmarks (the acromion, glenoid, and humerus) and the most lateral point of the glenosphere, which we termed the "glenoid pivot point" (GPP). For lateralization, we used the GPP to split LSA into 2 new angles: glenoid lateralization angle (GLA) and humeral lateralization angle (HLA). For distalization, we introduced the modified distalization shoulder angle (mDSA) that can also be split into 2 new angles: glenoid distalization angle (GDA) and humeral distalization angle (HDA). Three orthopedic surgeons measured the new angles, using the online tool Tyche. Mean values with overall and individual standard deviations as well as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. RESULTS: Because the angles form a triangle, the following equations can be made: LSA = GLA + HLA, and mDSA = GDA + HDA. All angles showed excellent inter- and intraobserver reliability (ICC = 0.92-0.97) with low means of individual standard deviations that indicate a precision of 2° for each angle. CONCLUSION: Use of the most lateral part of the glenosphere (termed glenoid pivot point) allows us to separately measure glenoid vs. humeral lateralization and distalization. The 4 new angles (HLA, GLA, GDA, HDA) described in the present study can be used on true AP radiographs, routinely obtained after shoulder replacement, and the measured angles may be used with all types of reverse prostheses available.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty design-inlay vs. onlay: does it really make a difference?

BACKGROUND: The design of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) implants has evolved significantly over the past 50 years. Today there are many options available that differ in design of the glenoid and humeral components, fixation methods, sizes, and modularity. With respect to the humeral component, the literature has generally focused on the differences between inlay and onlay designs and the potential impact on outcomes. However, inlay and onlay design represents only one factor of many. METHODS: It is our hypothesis that separating onlay and inlay designs into 2 distinct entities is an oversimplification as there can be a wide overlap of the 2 designs, depending on surgical technique and the implant selected. As such, the differences between inlay and onlay designs should be measured in absolute terms-meaning combined distalization and lateralization. RESULTS: By reviewing the many factors that can contribute to the glenosphere-humerus relationship, the role of inlay and onlay humeral designs as an important distinguishing feature is shown to be limited. Preliminary studies suggest that the amount of distalization and lateralization of the construct may be the most accurate method of describing the differences in the constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay and onlay humeral component design represents only one factor of many that may impact outcomes. A more accurate method of defining specific design and technique factors in RSA is the degree of lateralization and distalization.

The effect of lateralization and distalization after Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between multiple radiographic measures of lateralization and distalization and clinical outcome scores after a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all RTSAs performed by the senior author between January 1, 2007, and November 1, 2017. We then evaluated the visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores and complication and reoperation rates at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. We measured preoperative and postoperative (2-week) radiographs for the lateralization shoulder angle (LSA), the distalization shoulder angle (DSA), lateral humeral offset, and the distance from the glenoid to the lateral aspect of the greater tuberosity. A multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the postoperative radiographic measurements on final patient-reported outcomes (ASES scores, SST, and VAS pain). RESULTS: The cohort included 216 shoulders from unique patients who had patient-reported outcome scores available at a minimum of 2-year follow-up (average, 4.0 ± 1.9 years) for a total follow-up rate of 70%. In the multivariable models, more lateralization (LSA) was associated with worse final ASES scores -0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.88, -0.17; P = .004), and more distalization (DSA) was associated with better final ASES scores 0.40 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.69; P = .007). More lateralization (LSA) was associated with worse final SST scores -0.06 (95% CI: -0.11, -0.003; P = .039). Finally, greater distalization (DSA) was associated with lower final VAS pain scores, ratio = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.00; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Greater distalization and less lateralization are associated with better function and less pain after a Grammont-style RTSA. When using a Grammont-style implant, remaining consistent with Grammont's principles of implant placement will afford better final clinical outcomes.

Lateralization and distalization shoulder angles do not predict outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), there are a plethora of measurements regarding implant lateralization and distalization to optimize the center of rotation. Two specific measurements known as the "lateralization shoulder angle" (LSA) and "distalization shoulder angle" (DSA) have been the recent focus of studies to assess their association with RSA and postoperative function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic clinical value of the LSA and DSA in a large cohort of patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) who were treated with different RSA systems. METHODS: Two local shoulder arthroplasty registries were reviewed for all RSA patients documented to have undergone a radiologic assessment and complete 2-year follow-up examination. The main inclusion criterion was primary RSA in patients with CTA. Patients with either a complete teres minor tear, os acromiale, or acromial stress fracture reported between the time of surgery and the 24-month follow-up were excluded. Five RSA implant systems with 4 neck-shaft angles (NSAs) were assessed. The Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value, and range of motion at 2 years were correlated with both the LSA and DSA assessed on 6-month anteroposterior radiographs. Linear and parabolic univariable regressions were calculated for both shoulder angles, for each prosthesis system, and for the entire patient cohort. RESULTS: Between May 2006 and November 2019, there were a total of 630 CTA patients who had undergone primary RSA. Of this large cohort of patients, 270 were treated with the Promos Reverse prosthesis system (NSA, 155°); 44, Aequalis Reversed II (NSA, 155°); 62, Lima SMR Reverse (NSA, 150°); 25, Aequalis Ascend Flex (NSA, 145°); and 229, Univers Revers (NSA, 135°). The mean LSA was 78° (standard deviation [SD], 10°; range, 6°-107°), and the mean DSA was 51° (SD, 10°; range, 7°-91°). The average Constant score at 24 months' follow-up was 68.1 points (SD, 13 points; range, 13-96 points). Neither the linear nor parabolic regression calculations for the LSA or DSA revealed significant associations with any of the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Different patients may achieve different clinical outcomes despite having identical LSA and DSA values. There is no association between angular radiographic measurements and 2-year functional outcomes after RSA.

Robert H. Cofield, MD, Award for Best Oral Presentation 2023: Up to 8 mm of glenoid-sided lateralization does not increase the risk of acromial or scapular spine stress fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° inlay humeral component.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid-sided lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) decreases bony impingement and improves rotational range of motion, but has been theorized to increase the risk of acromial or scapular spine fractures (ASFs). The purpose of this study was to assess if glenoid-sided lateralization even up to 8 mm increases the risk for stress fracture following RSA with a 135° inlay humeral component. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed from a multicenter prospectively collected database on patients who underwent primary RSA from 2015 to 2021. All RSAs were performed with a 135° inlay humeral component. Varying amounts of glenoid lateralization were used from 0 to 8 mm. Preoperative radiographs were reviewed for the presence of acromial thinning, acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and inclination. Postoperative implant position (distalization, lateralization, and inclination) as well as the presence of ASF was evaluated on minimum 1-year postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses were performed on component and clinical variables to assess for factors predictive of ASF. RESULTS: Acromial or scapular spine fractures were identified in 26 of 470 shoulders (5.5%). Glenoid-sided lateralization was not associated with ASF risk (P = .890). Furthermore, the incidence of fracture did not vary based on glenoid-sided lateralization (0-2 mm, 7.4%; 4 mm, 5.6%; 6 mm, 4.4%; 8 mm, 6.0%; P > .05 for all comparisons). RSA on the dominant extremity was predictive of fracture (odds ratio [OR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-5.75; P = .037), but there was no relationship between patient age, sex, preoperative acromial thinning, or diagnosis and risk of fracture. Although there was no difference in mean postoperative AHD between groups (P = .443), the pre- to postoperative delta AHD was higher in the stress fracture group (2.0 ± 0.7 cm vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 cm; P = .015). For every centimeter increase in delta AHD, there was a 121% increased risk for fracture (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.33-3.68; P = .012). Additionally, for every 1-mm increase in inferior glenosphere overhang, there was a 19% increase in fracture risk (P = .025). CONCLUSION: Up to 8 mm of glenoid-sided metallic lateralization does not appear to increase the risk of ASF when combined with a 135° inlay humeral implant. Humeral distalization increases the risk of ASF, particularly when there is a larger change between pre- and postoperative AHD or higher inferior glenosphere overhang. In cases of pronounced preoperative superior humeral migration, it may be a consideration to avoid excessive postoperative distalization, but minimizing bony impingement via glenoid-sided lateralization appears to be safe.

Joint line position change in primary total knee arthroplasty: a radiographic analysis comparing conventional and robotic techniques.

PURPOSE: Joint line (JL) position change in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may alter knee biomechanics and impact function. The purpose of this study was to compare the change in JL position between robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) and conventional TKA (C-TKA). METHODS: A retrospective, radiographic analysis was conducted of patients who underwent RA-TKA and C-TKA to compare JL position change. JL position was measured in consecutive RA-TKAs and C-TKAs performed by four fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. Statistical analysis was done utilizing t-tests and Mann Whitney U tests, with statistical significance being defined as a p value < 0.05. RESULTS: Six hundred total RA-TKAs and 400 total C-TKAs were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in patient baseline characteristics such as body mass index, range of motion, and tibiofemoral coronal alignment. RA-TKAs were associated with an average of 0.04 (2.2) mm JL position change, and C-TKAs were associated with an average 0.5 (3.2) mm JL position change (p = 0.030). There were inter-surgeon differences when comparing the change in JL position for RA-TKAs and C-TKAs between the four participating surgeons. CONCLUSION: RA-TKA leads to better preservation of the JL position than C-TKA, and this seems to be dependent on the arthroplasty surgeon's preferences and techniques during TKA. Whether this statistically significant difference is clinically relevant needs to be further investigated.

The lateralization and distalization index is more reliable than angular radiographic measurements in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The lateralization shoulder angle (LSA) and distalization shoulder angle (DSA) are used to reproducibly measure lateralization and distalization after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). However, LSA and DSA may not offer a precise measurement of humeral lateralization and distalization and this relationship has not been explored. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of these measurements and to propose new measurement methods to estimate implant lateralization and distalization. METHODS: 3D models were constructed from computed tomography (CT) scans of 30 patients using a software platform. For each patient 24 different RSA modifications were created, resulting in 720 different RSA configurations. For each configuration LSA and DSA angles as well as lateralization and distalization distances were measured. Moreover, for each configuration two new measurements were done: the lateralization index (LI) and distalization index (DI). Correlations of the lateralization and distalization parameters were evaluated between measurements. RESULTS: Weak correlations were founded between LSA and lateralization (r = 0.36, p < 0.01), whereas moderate correlations were observed between LI and lateralization (r = 0.72, p < 0.01). No significant correlations were found between DSA and distalization (r = 0.17, p = 0.113). In contrast, moderate correlations were identified between DI and distalization (r = 0.69, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: LI and DI are more reliable methods to estimate implant lateralization and distalization compared to angular radiographic measurements. However, the prognostic significance in predicting clinical outcomes after RSA remains unknown.

Cervical headgear effectiveness in distalizing molars in relation to patient compliance.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to measure the effectiveness of the cervical headgear for distalizing first permanent maxillary molars in relation to hours of use. METHODS: This was a one-centre, prospective, clinical study conducted at the Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Participants (N = 26; 17 females, 9 males) were patients with no history of orthodontic treatment, no syndromes or clefts, and Angle's Class II malocclusion, where the treatment plan included a cervical headgear. They were instructed to wear the appliance for at least 12 h per day. A TheraMon® microsensor was embedded in the headgear's strap to objectively measure wear-time. To measure tooth movement, pre- and post-treatment digital models were superimposed, using the palate as a reference area; translation and rotation were measured along three axes. Superimposition and movement measurements were made with the Viewbox 4 software. RESULTS: Average treatment time and headgear wear were 130 days and 55 days, respectively, i.e. 10.1 h/day. During this period, distal movement averaged 1.75 mm with high variability (min 0.2 mm, max 4.5 mm). Distal tipping and rotation had an average of approximately 5 °C. Cumulative headgear wear was significantly correlated with distal movement (r2 = 0.32, P < .002), distal tipping (r2 = 0.27, P < .01), and distal rotation around the long axis of the tooth (r2 = 0.20, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Compliance is critical for having a successful clinical outcome. Distalization of the molar with a cervical headgear is correlated with the cumulative hours of appliance use, with hours per day being a weaker predictor.

Biomechanical analysis of miniscrew-assisted molar distalization with clear aligners: a three-dimensional finite element study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To compare the biomechanical characteristics of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners in conjunction with three types of miniscrew anchorage. MATERIALS/METHODS: Three-dimensional (3D) finite element models of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners and three types of miniscrew anchorage were established, including (A) control group, (B) direct buccal miniscrew anchorage group, (C) direct palatal miniscrew anchorage group, and (D) indirect buccal miniscrew anchorage group. The 3D displacement of maxillary teeth and the principal stress (maximum tensile and compressive stress) on the root and periodontal ligament (PDL) during molar distalization were recorded. RESULTS: The tooth displacement pattern during maxillary molar distalization in the four groups showed similarities, including labial tipping of anterior teeth, mesial and buccal tipping of premolars, and distal and buccal tipping of molars, but with varying magnitudes. Group C exhibited the greatest molar distalization, with the first molar achieving 0.1334 mm of crown distalization. Group D demonstrated a notable buccal crown movement (0.0682 mm) and intrusion (0.0316 mm) of the first premolar. Compared to Groups A and B, Groups C and D showed less labial crown tipping of the central incisor. Group B showed the greatest amount of maxillary incisor intrusion (central incisor: 0.0145 mm, lateral incisor: 0.0094 mm). Moreover, Groups C and D displayed significantly lower levels of compressive and tensile stress in the roots and PDL of the maxillary central and lateral incisors. LIMITATION: Molar distalization is a dynamic process involving sequential tooth movement stages; however, our research primarily examined the tooth movement patterns in the initial aligner. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The use of miniscrew anchorage, especially direct palatal miniscrew anchorage, may enhance the treatment efficacy of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners, leading to increased molar distalization, reduced mesial movement of premolars, and minimized labial tipping of anterior teeth.

Comparison of treatment effects between clear aligners and fixed appliances in patients treated with miniscrew-assisted molar distalization.

OBJECTIVES: The biomechanics in achieving molar distalization may differ between fixed appliances and clear aligners in the control of tooth movement. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment effects between clear aligners (CA) and fixed appliances (FA) in patients treated with miniscrew-assisted molar distalization. METHODS: The sample consisted of 46 subjects with mild-to-moderate crowding. A total of 22 patients treated with clear aligners (age, 25.66 ±â€…6.11 years old) and 24 patients treated with fixed appliances (age, 24.04 ±â€…4.95 years old) for miniscrew-assisted molar distalization were included in this study. The dental and skeletal changes were evaluated by the pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. RESULTS: Significant changes were found with the vertical variables SN-OP angle (2.24 ±â€…3.22°, P < .05) and SN-MP angle (0.73 ±â€…1.15°, P < .05) for the FA group when compared with the CA group (SN-OP angle 0.41 ±â€…2.26° and SN-MP angle -0.21 ±â€…1.38°, P > .05). Both treatment groups achieved a 2-3 mm. molar distalization with significant intrusion of the upper molars. The CA group showed significantly less distal tipping of molars (U6^PP angle -2.29 ±â€…3.29° and L6^MP angle -2.92 ±â€…2.49°, P < .05) compared to the FA group (-5.24 ±â€…4.28° and -5.53 ±â€…5.03°, P < .05). In addition, significant retraction and lingual inclination of the upper and lower incisors were found in both groups. LIMITATIONS: The changes of tooth position were evaluated by 2D lateral cephalograms, not 3D measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to fixed appliances, clear aligners seemed to have better control of vertical dimension and distal tipping of molars in patients treated with miniscrew-assisted molar distalization.

Tip, torque and rotation of maxillary molars during distalization using Invisalign: a CBCT study.

BACKGROUND: Desirable molar distalization by bodily movement is challenging and can be difficult to achieve. This study investigated changes in molar angulation (mesiodistal tipping), molar inclination (buccolingual torque) and rotation during distalization using clear aligner therapy (CAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 38 cone beam computed tomographic images (CBCTs) taken for patients treated with molar distalization using CAT. The study evaluated pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) CBCTs of 19 adult patients (36.68 ± 13.50 years) who underwent maxillary molar distalization using Invisalign® aligners (Align Technology, Inc., San José, CA, USA) with a minimum of 2 mm distalization. Changes in maxillary molar tip, torque and rotation were measured for 61 molars (183 roots). Paired t-test was used to evaluate the differences between pre- and post-treatment readings. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. The reproducibility of measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Molar angulation did not show significant change after distalization (p = 0.158) however, there was significant increase in buccal molar inclination (p = 0.034) and mesiobuccal molar rotation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Molar distalization of 2 mm did not cause significant molar tipping. Maxillary molars showed significant buccal inclination (increased torque) and mesiobuccal rotation after distalization.

Impact of molar teeth distalization by clear aligners on maxillary alveolar bone thickness and root resorption: a three­dimensional study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of molar teeth distalization movement by clear aligners on changes in the alveolar bone thickness and orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) in maxillary molars using conebeam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional CBCT scans of 35 adult patients (one hundred forty maxillary molars) with pre-designed selection criteria and a mean age of 24.4 ± 7.1 years were included. The measured parameters, including alveolar bone thickness for maxillary molars and root resorption (OIIRR), were analyzed using pre-and post-treatment CBCT (T0 and T1, respectively) with Invivo 6.0 software. RESULT: Post-treatment, relevant statistically significant changes included deposition of bone in the average palatal surface of the 1st molars. The reduction of bone was seen in the average buccal surface of the first molars and both surfaces of the second molars. Regarding root length after treatment, the average maxillary 1st molar roots showed significant OIIRR (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clear aligner treatment could effectively reduce the incidence of alveolar bone thickness reduction and OIIRR in treating Class II malocclusions compared to conventional braces, as shown in previous studies. This research will aid in fully grasping the benefits of clear aligners.

Cephalometric and digital model analysis of dentoskeletal effects of infrazygomatic miniscrew vs. Essix- anchored Carriere Motion appliance for distalization of maxillary buccal segment: a randomized clinical trial.

TRIAL DESIGN: Parallel. OBJECTIVE: To compare skeletally anchored Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment vs. Essix anchored CMA. METHODS: Thirty-two class II malocclusion patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. One group was treated with infrazygomatic (IZC) miniscrew- anchored CMA (IZCG) and the other group treated with Essix retainer- anchored CMA (EXG). Two lateral cephalograms and two digital models for upper and lower arches were taken for each patient: immediately before intervention and after distalization had been completed. RESULTS: Distalization period was not significantly different between the two groups. In contrast to EXG, IZCG showed insignificant difference in ANB, lower incisor proclination, and mesial movement of the lower first molar. There was significant rotation with distal movement of maxillary canine and first molar in both groups. CONCLUSION: IZC anchored CMA could eliminate the side effects of class II elastics regarding lower incisor proclination, mesial movement lower molars with a more significant amount of distalization of the maxillary buccal segment but with significant molar rotation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) has this RCT registered as (NCT05499221) on 12/08/2022.

Three-dimensional measurement and analysis of Mandibular Molar Distalization assisted by micro-implant anchorage combined with clear aligner.

Objective: To investigate the effect of micro-implant anchorage combined with a clear aligner on the efficiency of mandibular molar distalization and the protection of anterior teeth anchorage, provide reference for clinical scheme design. Methods: This is a prospective study. Seventeen patients who were treated in the Orthodontics Department of the Hospital of Stomatology affiliated to Fujian Medical University from 2019 to 2021 and used Invisalign clear aligners to move mandibular molars distally were included and divided into two groups according to anchorage types: Group-A and Group-B. Group-A (ten cases) were treated without micro-implant anchorage, while Group-B (seven cases) were treated with micro-implant anchorage nails for enhanced anchorage. The effect of micro-implant anchorage on crown and root distal movement of mandibular molars and the difference in three-dimensional movement between mandibular molars and mandibular central incisors were analyzed. Results: The crown distalization efficiency of mandibular first and second molars in Group-B was 68.66% and 71.02%, respectively, which were higher than those in Group-A(p<0.05). The mandibular central incisors in Group-A showed labial displacement and a small amount of elongation, while those in Group-B showed less anchorage loss(p<0.05). In Group-A, the crown was tilted in the distal direction and moved in the buccal direction during mandibular molar distalization(p<0.05). While in Group-B, the crown was tilted in the distal directio (p<0.05) and the mandibular second molar was depressed(p<0.05). Conclusion: In the process of mandibular molar distalization assisted by micro-implant anchorage combined with a clear aligner, better protects the anchorage of the mandibular central incisor and improves the efficiency of the molar crown distalization.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic tooth movement during miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization in humans: a single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial.

To investigate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic tooth movement during maxillary molar distalization over a 12-week observation period. Twenty patients were enrolled in this clinical trial. On the 0th, 3rd, 7th, 14th, 21st, 42nd, and 63rd days following the initial activation of the distalization appliance, laser therapy was applied in a total of 16 different points of the first and second molars for 10 s per point to the randomly determined molar region of the individuals in the intervention group. The amount of molar distalization was measured using digital scans of the three-dimensional (3D) digital models obtained during the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th weeks. The amount of tooth movement on the laser-applied side of subjects in the intervention group was significantly greater than those in the contralateral and control groups at all time intervals (p < 0.001). The amount of tooth movement between the contralateral side of the intervention group and the control group was determined to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) at all time intervals. The laser-treated molars of the subjects in the intervention group moved 1.22 times more than the molars in the contralateral side and in the control group in 12 weeks. The rate of tooth movement in the laser, contralateral, and control groups was 0.033, 0.027, and 0.027 mm/day, respectively. Although LLLT was found to be statistically significant in terms of accelerating tooth movement, the effect of LLLT is not considered to be clinically significant. This trial was retrospectively registered (September 22, 2022) at Clinical-Trials.gov (Ref no: NCT05550168).