• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.51 no.3
• /
• pp.310-320
• /
• 2024

Impaction of the tooth can cause functional and esthetic problems, so early intervention is critical. This report describes two cases of orthodontic traction of impacted mandibular canine and mandibular premolar teeth using a modified mandibular lingual arch soldered with traction hooks rather than a conventional orthodontic appliance. By planning the position and shape of the traction hooks with consideration for the three-dimensional position and angulation of the impacted teeth, clinicians can apply the intended direction and magnitude of traction force. Furthermore, this appliance can be used for multiple impacted teeth in various locations within the mandibular arch by modifying the position and shape of the traction hooks.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.224-235
• /
• 2018

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue treatment effects of nonextraction therapy using the modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) to those of premolar extraction (PE) treatment in adult patients with Class II malocclusion. Methods: Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalographs of 40 adult patients with Class II malocclusion were retrospectively analyzed. The MCPP group comprised 20 patients treated with total arch distalization of the maxillary arch while the PE group comprised 20 patients treated with four PE. Fifty-eight linear and angular measurements were analyzed to assess the changes before and after treatment. Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and multivariate analysis of variance were performed to evaluate the treatment effects within and between the two groups. Results: The MCPP group presented 3.4 mm of retraction, 1.0 mm of extrusion, and $7.3^{\circ}$ lingual inclination of the maxillary central incisor. In comparison, the PE group displayed greater amount of maxillary central incisor retraction and retroclination, mandibular incisor retraction, and upper lip retraction (5.3 mm, $14.8^{\circ}$, 5.1 mm, and 2.0 mm, respectively; p < 0.001 for all). In addition, the MCPP group showed 4.0 mm of distalization and 1.3 mm of intrusion with $2.9^{\circ}$ distal tipping of the maxillary first molars. Conclusions: These findings suggest the MCPP is an effective distalization appliance in the maxillary arch. The amount of incisor retraction, however, was significantly higher in the PE group. Therefore, four PE may be recommended when greater improvement of incisor position and soft-tissue profile is required.