Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2025
Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Effective contribution ratio of the molar during sequential distalization using clear aligners and micro-implant
Xulin Liu1, Junjie Wu1, Yuxun Cheng1
1State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Shaanxi Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China.
Introduction:
This study aims to investigate the biomechanical effects of anchorage reinforcement using clear aligners (CAs) with microimplants during molar distalization. And also explores potential clinical strategies for enhancing anchorage in the sequential distalization process.
Methods:
Finite element models were established to simulate the CAs, microimplants, upper dentition, periodontal ligament (PDL), and alveolar bone. In group set I, the 2nd molars underwent a distal movement of 0.25 mm in group set II, the 1st molars were distalized by 0.25 mm after the 2nd molars had been placed to a target position. Each group set consisted of three models: Model A served as the control model, Model B simulated the use of microimplants attached to the aligner through precision cuts, and Model C simulated the use of microimplants attached by buttons. Models B and C were subjected to a series of traction forces. We analyzed the effective contribution ratios of molar distalization, PDL hydrostatic stress, and von Mises stress of alveolar bone.
Results:
The distalization of the 2nd molars accounted for a mere 52.86% of the 0.25-mm step distance without any reinforcement of anchorage. The remaining percentage was attributed to the mesial movement of anchorage teeth and other undesired movements. Models B and C exhibited an increased effective contribution ratio of molar distalization and a decreased loss of anchorage. However, there was a slight increase in the undesired movement of molar tipping and rotation. In group set II, the 2nd molar displayed a phenomenon of mesial relapse due to the reciprocal force produced by the 1st molar distalization. Moreover, the efficacy of molar distalization in terms of contribution ratio was found to be positively correlated with the magnitude of force applied. In cases where stronger anchorage reinforcement is required, precision cuts is the superior method.
Conclusions:
The utilization of microimplants in conjunction with CAs can facilitate the effective contribution ratio of molar distalization. However, it is important to note that complete elimination of anchorage loss is not achievable. To mitigate undesired movement, careful planning of anchorage preparation and overcorrection is recommended.
