Objectives

To evaluate treatment effects in Class II patients using infrazygomatic crest (IZC) miniscrews (MS).

Materials and Methods

A prospective sample of 25 adolescents (14 females and 11 males; mean age: 13.6 ± 1.5 years) who underwent maxillary dentition distalization treatment with IZC MSs were recruited. Lateral cephalograms and digital models at the beginning of treatment (T1) and after Class II molar correction (T2) were obtained. To compare cephalometric and digital model changes, paired t-test and Wilcoxon test were used. A significance level of 5% was used.

Results

All patients achieved Class II molar correction over a mean period of 7.7 ± 2.5 months. The IZC MS therapy provided 4 mm of distalization; there was 1.2 mm of intrusion of the first molar with 11.2° distal tipping. The maxillary incisors were retracted 4.7 mm and tipped lingually 13.4°. Overjet and overbite showed a reduction of 3.6 mm and 2.4 mm, respectively. The occlusal plane rotated clockwise 2.8°. The upper lip was retracted by 1 mm and the nasolabial angle increased 5.1°. There was an increase in the interpremolar and intermolar distances.

Conclusions

Total arch distalization of the maxillary dentition using IZC MS was effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusions.

Class II malocclusion is one of the most prevalent types of malocclusion in contemporary orthodontic practice, being observed in 38% to 50% of patients.1,2  It has been related to less favorable perceptions of facial and dental esthetics,3,4  contributing negatively to the quality of life and self-esteem of patients.5  Class II treatment in permanent dentition during the growth period can help establish an ideal and stable occlusion.6 

Numerous therapeutic options are available for the treatment of Class II malocclusion, such as headgear, functional orthopedic appliances, mandibular protraction, conventional fixed appliances with intermaxillary elastics, and a combination of these mechanics with tooth extractions, which have proven to be effective; however, the options each require considerable cooperation of patients to fulfill their real goals.79 

To overcome dependence on patient compliance, temporary anchorage devices (TADs) were introduced by Kanomi,10  who placed miniscrews (MS) between the roots of posterior teeth to promote retraction of anterior teeth. These MS were classified as interradicular (IR). However, IR MS have some major problems such as a high rate of failure, interference with the path of tooth movement, and impingement on the roots of adjacent teeth.1113 

On the other hand, MS installed in the region of the infrazygomatic crest (IZC) of the maxilla have been highlighted in the literature,14,15  allowing free dental movement along the path of posterior teeth since the position of the MS is outside the roots. They may be used for various orthodontic mechanics, such as total arch maxillary distalization, severe crowding correction, and correction of asymmetry.1620 

There have been several methods advocated for total arch maxillary distalization through buccal placement of TADs.2127  Additionally, a modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) for maxillary distalization has also been suggested for Class II correction. The MCPP allows total arch distalization, being easily placed without raising a flap, in comparison to miniplates (MP).2830  Lee et al.31  compared the treatment effects between palatally and buccally placed TADs and showed significantly greater amounts of distalization and intrusion with a smaller amount of distal tipping of the maxillary first molars using the MCPP.

There have been no prospective studies evaluating the effects of maxillary dentition distalization with MS implanted in the IZC. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the treatment effects of IZC MS during distalization of the whole maxillary dentition. The hypothesis was that IZC TADs would be effective for total arch distalization.

This prospective study was approved by the Review Board of the University of North Paraná, UNOPAR, Londrina-PR, Brazil and registered in the Brazilian registry of clinical trials (U1111-1258-6176). All patients were treated by one operator and appointments were made monthly. Sample size estimation was performed based on a significance level of 5% (alpha) and a beta value of 0.2, to achieve a minimum of 90% probability of detecting a mean difference of 2.8 mm in maxillary incisor retraction.31  A minimum of 22 patients were required.

A total of 384 patients were evaluated in municipal and private schools (Figure 1). Out of the 33 patients eligible, eight declined to participate and 25 patients were enrolled according to the following inclusion criteria: bilateral Class II molar relationship, age between 11 and 17 years, no history of previous orthodontic treatment, and presence of all permanent teeth fully erupted, except third molars. Those who presented with a posterior crossbite, syndromes, skeletal asymmetries, patients in need of extractions, agenesis (except for third molars), or dental anomalies were excluded. All patients had complete orthodontic records at the beginning (T1) of treatment and after Class II molar correction (T2). The sample of 25 patients (14 females and 11 males) with an initial mean age of 13.6 ± 1.5 years were analyzed.

Figure 1.

CONSORT Flow Diagram.

Figure 1.

CONSORT Flow Diagram.

Close modal

Self-ligating brackets (Roth prescription, 0.022-inch slot, Orthometric, Marília, SP, Brazil) were bonded to all teeth. Leveling was carried out with a sequence of Copper-NiTi (Orthometric, Marília), beginning with 0.014-inch, 0.016-inch, and then 0.016 × 0.025-inch. Total arch distalization mechanics took place after the insertion of a 0.017 × 0.025-inch beta-titanium archwire with crimpable hooks placed on the distal aspect of the lateral incisors and the placement of IZC MS (diameter: 2 mm; length: 12 mm; Peclab, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil) between the maxillary first and second molars.32  Distalization was initiated by engaging chain elastics (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Indiana) between the MS and archwire hooks (Figure 2), applying 350 g of force.

Figure 2.

Total arch distalization.

Figure 2.

Total arch distalization.

Close modal

Cephalometric and Digital Model Analysis

Lateral cephalograms were traced by one examiner using Dolphin Imaging software (version 11.7, Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif). A total of five linear and eight angular measurements were made as shown in Figure 3. Also, the measurements for evaluating the molar and incisor changes are summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 3.

Cephalometric analysis: SNA (sella-nasion-A); SNB (sella-nasion-B); ANB (maxillary-mandibular relationship); Wits (A point to occlusal plane-B point to occlusal plane); FMA (mandibular plane to Frankfurt horizontal); SN.GoGn (Mandibular plane-SN line); SN-Occlusal Plane (sella-nasion-Occlusal plane); Overjet (sagittal distance between upper incisor tip to lower incisor tip); overbite (vertical distance between upper incisor tip to lower incisor tip); U1-PP (Upper incisor long axis-palatal plane angle); U1-NA (distance between the most anterior point of the upper central incisor and NA line); UL-SnPog' (distance between upper lip and SnPog' line); Nasolabial angle (subnasale to columella and subnasale to upper lip tip).

Figure 3.

Cephalometric analysis: SNA (sella-nasion-A); SNB (sella-nasion-B); ANB (maxillary-mandibular relationship); Wits (A point to occlusal plane-B point to occlusal plane); FMA (mandibular plane to Frankfurt horizontal); SN.GoGn (Mandibular plane-SN line); SN-Occlusal Plane (sella-nasion-Occlusal plane); Overjet (sagittal distance between upper incisor tip to lower incisor tip); overbite (vertical distance between upper incisor tip to lower incisor tip); U1-PP (Upper incisor long axis-palatal plane angle); U1-NA (distance between the most anterior point of the upper central incisor and NA line); UL-SnPog' (distance between upper lip and SnPog' line); Nasolabial angle (subnasale to columella and subnasale to upper lip tip).

Close modal
Figure 4.

Cephalometric diagram used for cephalogram measurements: X: Horizontal reference line passing from anterior nasal spine (ANS) to the posterior nasal spine (PNS). Y: vertical reference line perpendicular to X axis passing through Sella Turcica. U1 tip to X (linear distance between maxillary incisor tip to X-axis perpendicularly); U1 apex to X (distance of maxillary incisor apex to X-axis); U1 tip to Y (distance of maxillary incisor edge to Y); U1 apex to Y (distance of maxillary incisor apex to Y-axis); U6 apex to X (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal root apex to X-axis); U6 apex to Y (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal root apex to Y-axis); U6 crown to X (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal crown to X-axis); U6 crown to Y (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal crown to Y-axis); U7 apex to X (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal root apex to X-axis); U7 apex to Y (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal root apex to Y-axis); U7 crown to X (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal crown to X-axis); U7 crown to Y (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal crown to Y-axis); U6D to Y (distance of maxillary first molar distal aspect of crown to Y-axis); U7D to Y (distance of maxillary second molar distal aspect of crown to Y-axis); U1tip to U6D (linear distance of maxillary incisor tip to maxillary first molar distal aspect perpendicular to X-axis); U1 to X (angulation of maxillary central incisor to X-axis); U6 to X (angle of a line perpendicular to maxillary first molar mesial surface to X-axis); U7 to X (angle of a line perpendicular to maxillary second molar mesial surface to X-axis).

Figure 4.

Cephalometric diagram used for cephalogram measurements: X: Horizontal reference line passing from anterior nasal spine (ANS) to the posterior nasal spine (PNS). Y: vertical reference line perpendicular to X axis passing through Sella Turcica. U1 tip to X (linear distance between maxillary incisor tip to X-axis perpendicularly); U1 apex to X (distance of maxillary incisor apex to X-axis); U1 tip to Y (distance of maxillary incisor edge to Y); U1 apex to Y (distance of maxillary incisor apex to Y-axis); U6 apex to X (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal root apex to X-axis); U6 apex to Y (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal root apex to Y-axis); U6 crown to X (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal crown to X-axis); U6 crown to Y (distance of maxillary first molar mesio-buccal crown to Y-axis); U7 apex to X (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal root apex to X-axis); U7 apex to Y (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal root apex to Y-axis); U7 crown to X (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal crown to X-axis); U7 crown to Y (distance of maxillary second molar mesio-buccal crown to Y-axis); U6D to Y (distance of maxillary first molar distal aspect of crown to Y-axis); U7D to Y (distance of maxillary second molar distal aspect of crown to Y-axis); U1tip to U6D (linear distance of maxillary incisor tip to maxillary first molar distal aspect perpendicular to X-axis); U1 to X (angulation of maxillary central incisor to X-axis); U6 to X (angle of a line perpendicular to maxillary first molar mesial surface to X-axis); U7 to X (angle of a line perpendicular to maxillary second molar mesial surface to X-axis).

Close modal

Digital models were captured by a 3Shape R700 3D scanner (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) to facilitate analysis with OrthoAnalyzer software (3Shape). Maxillary changes were evaluated regarding arch perimeter and length; and intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar distances (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Digital models.

Figure 5.

Digital models.

Close modal

Statistical Analysis and Error of the Method

Data distribution was analyzed by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. For comparison between the initial (T1) and after Class II molar correction (T2), paired t-tests were used when a normal distribution was seen. For non-normally distributed data, Wilcoxon test was used. Reliability was assessed by repeating cephalometric and digital model measurements for 30% of the sample after 30 days. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot were used. All statistical procedures were performed with the aid of Statistica 5.0 software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, Okla). Significance level was set at 5%.

Table 1 shows gender distribution, severity of Class II molar relationship, treatment time, and mean age at the start of treatment. Intra and interexaminer reliability of the cephalometric analysis was excellent (ICC ranged from 0.96 to 1.00). High reliability was found for digital model measures (ICC ranged from 0.95 to 1). The Bland-Altman test showed a low degree of bias for most of the repeated measures (upper limit: 0.07 to 2.96; lower limit: −0.07 to 2.06).

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of the Samplea

Baseline Characteristics of the Samplea
Baseline Characteristics of the Samplea

There was a significant increase in the ANB angle (Table 2). Wits measurement showed a significant decrease (−1.6 ± 2.5 mm). No significant changes were found regarding vertical growth of the mandible. A clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane was seen (2.8 ± 3.9 mm). There were significant decreases in the overjet (−3.6 ± 2 mm) and overbite (−2.4 ± 1.7 mm). Significant retroclination (−13.4° ± 10.2°) and retrusion of the maxillary incisors (−4.3 ± 2.6 mm) were observed. Upper lips were significantly retracted (−1 ± 1.2 mm) and the nasolabial angle showed a significant increase (5.1 ± 8.3 mm).

Table 2.

Conventional Cephalometric Analysis of the Treatment Effects of IZC Miniscrew Mechanics From Beginning of Treatment (T1) to Postdistalization of Total Arch (T2)a

Conventional Cephalometric Analysis of the Treatment Effects of IZC Miniscrew Mechanics From Beginning of Treatment (T1) to Postdistalization of Total Arch (T2)a
Conventional Cephalometric Analysis of the Treatment Effects of IZC Miniscrew Mechanics From Beginning of Treatment (T1) to Postdistalization of Total Arch (T2)a

IZC MS achieved 4 mm of maxillary first-molar distalization, 1.2 mm of intrusion, with 11.2° tipping. Also, there was 4.7 mm of retraction of the incisors, lingual tipping of 13.4°, labial movement of the apex of 0.9 mm, and 1 mm of apex extrusion (Table 3 and Figure 6). The apex of the mesiobuccal root of the first molar was significantly distalized by 1.3 mm.

Table 3.

Maxillary Cephalometric Analysis of the Treatment Effects of IZC Miniscrew Mechanics From Beginning of Treatment (T1) to Postdistalization of Total Arch (T2)a

Maxillary Cephalometric Analysis of the Treatment Effects of IZC Miniscrew Mechanics From Beginning of Treatment (T1) to Postdistalization of Total Arch (T2)a
Maxillary Cephalometric Analysis of the Treatment Effects of IZC Miniscrew Mechanics From Beginning of Treatment (T1) to Postdistalization of Total Arch (T2)a
Figure 6.

Schematic drawing of the mean treatment changes of the maxillary first molar and central incisor after the use of IZC MS mechanics.

Figure 6.

Schematic drawing of the mean treatment changes of the maxillary first molar and central incisor after the use of IZC MS mechanics.

Close modal

The maxillary intercanine measures did not show significant changes (Table 4). However, interpremolar (first, 2.8 mm; second, 3.1 mm) and intermolar distances (first, 2.3 mm; second, 1.4 mm) showed a significant increase. No significant changes were observed in arch perimeter and arch length.

Table 4.

Digital Model Analysis From T1 to T2a

Digital Model Analysis From T1 to T2a
Digital Model Analysis From T1 to T2a

No failures of the MS were observed and no patients failed to complete treatment nor were they excluded after treatment began.

This prospective study evaluated the treatment effects of IZC MS. All patients showed correction of the Class II molar relationship in a mean period of 7 months. Molar distalization of 4 mm and intrusion of 1.2 mm were observed. The maxillary incisors were retracted 4.7 mm and extruded 1 mm, which helped reduce the overjet by 3.6 mm. Similarly, Wu et al.33  found distalization (3.5 mm), intrusion of the molars (2.1 mm), and also retraction (4.3 mm) and extrusion (3.8 mm) of the maxillary incisors during a mean treatment time of 8 months using IZC MS. A similar magnitude of dental changes was showed by Bechtold et al.,27  who achieved 4.2 mm of distalization and 3.4 mm of retraction of incisors using IR MS.

Although a similar amount of molar distalization was also achieved with IR MS, buccally placed TADs must be relocated to retract the whole dentition posteriorly due to the limited amount of space between the roots and the screws. A systematic review34  described molar distalization ranging from 1.8 to 6.4 mm, with distal tipping ranging from 1.6° to 11.3°, and retraction of the incisors varying from 0.1 to 2.7 mm, during a mean treatment time ranging from 4.6 to 11.2 months. The current results were similar to those reported by Mohamed et al.34  Comparing the modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) with interradicular miniscrews, Lee et al.31  obtained greater amounts of distalization (4.2 mm) and intrusion (1.6 mm) with less distal tipping of the first molars (2°) and more extrusion of the incisors using MCPP; MS provided 2 mm of distalization of the molars and 0.1 mm of intrusion, as well as 2.5 mm of incisor retraction and 0.3 mm of extrusion.

The current study showed greater incisor retraction, apex extrusion, and lingual tipping compared to Lee et al.,31  who obtained incisor retraction of 2.9 mm and lingual tipping of the incisor of 4.4°. Greater distal tipping of the molars was seen in the current study versus the study of Lee et al.,31  who found 2° distal tipping. Since the apex moved labially 0.9 mm and the incisal edge of the incisors moved lingually 4.7 mm, the movement can be considered uncontrolled tipping. These differences may have occurred because, in the present study, 0.017 × 0.025-inch TMA wires were used in 0.022-inch slot brackets, while Lee et al.31  used 0.017 × 0.025-inch stainless steel wires in 0.018-inch slot brackets, thus allowing less play between the bracket and wire.

Another factor that influenced the results was the relationship between the line of action of the force from MS to the crimpable hook and the position of the center of resistance (CR). The IZC MS promoted a clockwise rotation of the maxillary occlusal plane because the line of force passed below the CR (Figure 7). Rotation of the maxillary occlusal plane was expected because it can improve the overjet and protrusion of anterior teeth in Class II patients. The differences in the amount of tooth displacement seemed to be due to the vertical position of the MS and the height of the hooks and variations in the direction of the force vector. The MS were implanted in the IZC approximately 11 mm above the occlusal plane32  and the length of the hook was approximately 4 mm. The height of the hook could also influence torque of the incisors and the occlusal plane rotation and, thus, care should be taken when choosing the appropriate biomechanics for a given patient.15 

Figure 7.

IZC miniscrew force system mechanics.

Figure 7.

IZC miniscrew force system mechanics.

Close modal

The upper lip was retracted 1 mm and the nasolabial angle increased by 5.1°. Similar results were attained previously with 1.1 mm of upper lip retraction and 5.7° increase in the nasolabial angle using MCPP.31  In the present study, there was an increase in the transverse widths between first (2.8 mm) and second (3.1 mm) premolars. A significant increase in the distances between first and second molars of 2.3 and 1.4 mm was also seen. In agreement with the present study, Wu et al.33  found an increase in the molar region (6.2 mm). When evaluating the arch perimeter and arch length, no significant changes were noted.

The findings of this study supported the hypothesis that IZC MS are effective for total arch distalization in Class II correction. In addition, IZC MS are inexpensive and there is no need to relocate them during treatment as would be required for IR MS. They are also simpler for clinicians to use compared to miniplates or the MCPP. Considering that there was an increase in ANB and clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane when achieving maxillary total dentition distalization using IZC MS, appropriate selection among Class II patients for application of this method is required. The present study also had some limitations, such as the lack of a control group, a short-term evaluation period, and the possible influence of growth that may take place during treatment.

  • IZC MS provided 4 mm of molar distalization and uncontrolled tipping to upright maxillary incisors.

  • The occlusal plane rotated clockwise 2.8°.

  • The upper lip was retracted by 1 mm and the nasolabial angle increased 5.1°.

  • There was significant expansion of the maxillary dental arch.

1. 
Almeida
MR,
Pereira
ALP,
Almeida
RR,
Almeida-Pedrin
RR,
Silva Filho
OG.
Prevalence of malocclusion in children aged 7 to 12 years
.
Dental Press J Orthod
.
2011
;
16
(4)
:
123
131
.
2. 
Willems
G,
De Bruyne
I,
Verdonck
A,
Fieuws
S,
Carels
C.
Prevalence of dentofacial characteristics in a Belgian orthodontic population
.
Clin Oral Investig
.
2001
;
5
(4)
:
220
226
.
3. 
Krooks
L,
Pirttiniemi
P,
Tolvanen
M,
Kanavakis
G,
Lähdesmäki
R,
Silvola
AS.
Association of facial sagittal and vertical characteristics with facial aesthetics in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966
.
Eur J Orthod
.
2019
;
41
(3)
:
279
285
.
4. 
Kiekens
RM,
Maltha
JC,
van't Hof
MA,
Kuijpers-Jagtman
AM.
Objective measures as indicators for facial esthetics in white adolescents
.
Angle Orthod
.
2006
;
76
(4)
:
551
556
.
5. 
Dutra
SR,
Pretti
H,
Martins
MT,
Bendo
CB,
Vale
MP.
Impact of malocclusion on the quality of life of children aged 8 to 10 years
.
Dental Press J Orthod
.
2018
;
23
(2)
:
46
53
.
6. 
Tulloch
JF,
Proffit
WR,
Phillips
C.
Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2004
;
125
(6)
:
657
667
.
7. 
Papadopoulos
MA.
Orthodontic Treatment for the Class II Noncompliant Patient: Current Principles and Techniques
.
Edinburgh, Scotland
:
Elsevier-Mosby;
2006
.
8. 
Proffit
WR,
Fields
HW,
Sarver
DM.
Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed
.
St Louis
:
Mosby;
2007
.
9. 
Graber
TM.
Current Orthodontic Concepts and Techniques
.
Philadelphia
:
W. B. Saunders
;
1969
:
482–483
,
527
584
.
10. 
Kanomi
R.
Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage
.
J Clin. Orthod
.
1997
;
31
:
763
767
.
11. 
Watanabe
H,
Deguchi
T,
Hasegawa
M,
Ito
M,
Kim
S,
Takano-Yamamoto
T.
Orthodontic miniscrew failure rate and root proximity, insertion angle, bone contact length, and bone density
.
Orthod Craniofacial Res
.
2013
;
16
:
44
55
.
12. 
Jing
Z,
Wu
Y,
Jiang
W,
et al
Factors affecting the clinical success rate of miniscrew implants for orthodontic treatment
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2016
;
31
:
835
841
.
13. 
Alharbi
F,
Almuzian
M,
Beam
D.
Miniscrews failure rate in orthodontics: a systematic review
.
Eur J Orthod
.
2018
;
50
:
519
530
.
14. 
Liaw
JJL,
Roberts
WE.
Paradigm shift in class III treatment with TADs
.
Int J Orthod Implantol
.
2012
;
28
:
22
36
.
15. 
Almeida
MR.
Biomechanics of extra-alveolar mini-implants
.
Dental Press J Orthod
.
2019
;
24
(4)
:
93
109
.
16. 
Lima
A
Jr,
Domingos
RG,
Cunha Ribeiro
AN,
Rino Neto J, de Paiva JB. Safe sites for orthodontic miniscrew insertion in the infrazygomatic crest area in different facial types: a tomographic study
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2022
;
161
(1)
:
37
45
.
17. 
Chang
C,
Roberts
WE.
Orthodontics
.
Taipei, Taiwan
:
Yong Chieh;
2012
.
18. 
Lee
SA,
Chang
CCH,
Roberts
WE.
Severe unilateral scissors-bite with a constricted mandibular arch: bite turbos and extra-alveolar bone screws in the infrazygomatic crests and mandibular buccal shelf
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2018
;
154
(4)
:
554
569
.
19. 
Park
HS,
Lee
SK,
Kwon
OW.
Group distal movement of teeth using microscrew implant anchorage
.
Angle Orthod
.
2005
;
75
:
602
609
.
20. 
Almeida
MR.
Extra-alveolar miniscrews in the treatment of asymmetries in orthodontics
.
Rev Clin Orthod Dental Press
.
2018
;
17
(3)
:
79
92
.
21. 
Park
HS.
The skeletal cortical anchorage using titanium microscrew implants
.
Korean J Orthod
.
1999
;
29
:
699
706
.
22. 
Park
HS,
Bae
SM,
Kyung
HM,
Sung
JH.
Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion
.
J Clin Orthod
.
2001
;
35
:
417
422
.
23. 
Kim
SJ,
Chun
YS,
Jung
SH,
Park
SH.
Three dimensional analysis of tooth movement using different types of maxillary molar distalization appliances
.
Korean J Orthod
.
2008
;
38
:
376
387
.
24. 
Oh
YH,
Park
HS,
Kwon
TG.
Treatment effects of microimplant- aided sliding mechanics on distal retreaction of posterior teeth
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2011
;
139
:
470
481
.
25. 
Bechtold
TE,
Kim
JW,
Choi
TH,
Park
YC,
Lee
KJ.
Distalization pattern of the maxillary arch depending on the number of orthodontic miniscrews
.
Angle Orthod
.
2013
;
83
:
266
273
.
26. 
Cornelis
MA,
De Clerke
HJ.
Maxillary molar distalization with miniplates assessed on digital models: a prospective clinical trial
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthod
.
2007
;
132
:
373
377
.
27. 
Bechtold
TE,
Park
YC,
Kim
KH,
Jung
H,
Kang
JY,
Choi
YJ.
Long-term stability of miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization in Class II treatment
.
Angle Orthod
.
2020
;
90
(3)
:
362
368
.
28. 
Kook
YA,
Park
JH,
Kim
Y,
Ahn
CS,
Bayome
B.
Sagittal correction of adolescent patients with modified palatal anchorage plate appliances
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2015
;
148
:
674
684
.
29. 
Kook
YA,
Park
JH,
Bayome
M,
Sa'aed
NL.
Correction of severe bimaxillary protrusion with first premolar extractions and total arch distalization with palatal anchorage plates
.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
.
2015
;
148
:
310
320
.
30. 
Sa'aed
NL,
Park
CO,
Bayome
M,
Park
JH,
Kim
Y,
Kook
YA.
Skeletal and dental effects of molar distalization using a modified palatal anchorage plate in adolescents
.
Angle Orthod
.
2015
;
85
:
657
664
.
31. 
Lee
SK,
Abbas
NH,
Bayome
M,
et al
A comparison of treatment effects of total arch distalization using modified C palatal plate vs buccal miniscrews
.
Angle Orthod
.
2018
;
88
:
45
51
.
32. 
Matias
M,
Flores-Mir
C,
Almeida
MR,
et al
Miniscrew insertion sites of infrazygomatic crest and mandibular buccal shelf in different vertical craniofacial patterns: a cone-beam computed tomography study
.
Korean J Orthod
.
2021
;
51
:
387
396
.
33. 
Wu
X,
Liu
H,
Luo
C,
Li
Y,
Ding
Y.
Three-dimensional evaluation on the effect of maxillary dentition distalization with miniscrews implanted in the infrazygomatic crest
.
Implant Dent
.
2017
;
27
(1)
:
22
27
.
34. 
Mohamed
RN,
Basha
S,
Al-Thomali
Y.
Maxillary molar distalization with miniscrew-supported appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review
.
Angle Orthod
.
2018
;
88
:
494
502
.

Author notes

a

Postgraduate Student (PhD), Department of Orthodontics, University of North Parana, Londrina, PR, Brazil.

b

Full Professor, Department of Orthodontics, University of North Parana, Londrina, PR, Brazil.

c

Professor and Postgraduate Program Director, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.