View/Download PDF
Case Report
9 (
2
); 111-116
doi:
10.25259/APOS-57-2019

Alternative approach using miniscrew-anchored sliding jig to correct maxillary midline deviation in a patient with unilateral missing premolar

Department of Orthodontic Science, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Corresponding author: Kazuo Shimazaki, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8549, Japan. kazortho@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
How to cite this article: Shimazaki K, Kanno Z, Ono T. Alternative approach using miniscrew-anchored sliding jig to correct maxillary midline deviation in a patient with unilateral missing premolar. APOS Trends Orthod 2019;9(2):111-6.

Abstract

This case report describes the use of a miniscrew-anchored sliding jig (SJ) to distalize molars in a patient with maxillary midline deviation. A 41-year-old female presented with a chief complaint of maxillary midline deviation toward the left caused by prior orthodontic treatment involving unilateral extraction of a maxillary left premolar. Clinical examination revealed facial symmetry and a straight profile. The maxillary midline was deviated 2.5 mm to the left. The patient was treated with molar distalization using miniscrew-anchored SJs. Midline correction and alignment were obtained with maxillary unilateral distalization and mandibular full-arch distalization. The total active treatment period was 32 months. Appropriate occlusion and centered midlines were maintained after 29 months of retention. Our results suggest that the treatment method described herein is effective to distalize the unilateral posterior segment in either arch.

Keywords

Distalizer
Midline correction
Midline deviation
Molar distalization
Sliding jig
Show Related Articles from PubMed

INTRODUCTION

Treating midline deviation without tooth extraction is a challenging problem in orthodontics. When correcting midline deviation, it is important to determine the etiology and to evaluate the effects on occlusion.[1] Interarch elastics, symmetrical extraction, and unilateral distalization are the recommended treatments for midline deviation. However, unilateral distalization is challenging in patients with asymmetric molar relationships. Multiple treatment methods and appliances for molar distalization have been described.[2,3]

The use of miniscrews to obtain an absolute anchorage in other applications has recently been shown to optimize orthodontic mechanics, minimize unwanted reciprocal movement of other teeth, and require minimal patient cooperation.[4,5] Some reports have described the successful use of miniscrews with a sliding jig (SJ) to distalize the posterior teeth both unilaterally[6] and bilaterally.[7]

In this case report, we describe simultaneous unilateral distalization to correct maxillary midline deviation and full-arch mandibular distalization using miniscrew-anchored SJs.

CASE REPORT

A 41-year-old female presented with the chief complaints of uncentered maxillary dental midline and crowding of the mandibular anterior teeth. She had previously undergone 4 years of unsuccessful orthodontic treatment involving the extraction of the maxillary left first premolar.

The patient had facial symmetry and a straight profile. Her upper and lower lips were anterior to the E-line by 0.5 mm and 2.5 mm, respectively. The maxillary and mandibular dental midlines were coincident, although both were 2.5 mm to the left of the midsagittal plane, with the maxillary central incisors tipped to the left. The right molar relationship was Class I, whereas the left molar relationship was Class II because of the missing maxillary left first premolar [Figure 1].

Figure 1: Pretreatment facial and intraoral photographs and lateral cephalometric and panoramic radiographs.

Cephalometric analysis indicated a slight skeletal Class II tendency with an SNA angle of 79.7°, an SNB angle of 75.2°, and a high mandibular plane angle of 39.0°. Labial inclinations of the maxillary incisors (U1 to FH) and mandibular incisors (L1 to occlusal) were 118.2° and 34.2°, respectively.

On the basis of these findings, the patient was diagnosed with Angle Class II subdivision malocclusion, skeletal Class II relationship, a large mandibular plane angle, midline deviation toward the left, and mild mandibular anterior crowding.

Treatment objectives

The treatment objectives were to center the maxillary and mandibular dental midlines on the facial midline and to obtain functional molar occlusion and Class I canine occlusion.

Treatment alternatives

Asymmetric extraction is often considered in patients with dental asymmetry. We did not consider premolar extraction an attractive treatment option in this patient because her lip position and profile were acceptable. Another treatment option was to regain the extracted space. However, that approach risked causing labial inclination of the incisors and would have required prosthetic treatment. Instead, we planned simultaneous asymmetric distalization of the maxillary right segment (after extraction of the third molar) and bilateral mandibular full-arch distalization to obtain alignment. The nonextraction treatment plan appeared to have advantages for maintaining tongue space. To accomplish these goals, conventional full fixed appliances and miniscrew-anchored SJs were used.

Treatment progress

Before orthodontic treatment, the right maxillary third molar was extracted and the orthodontic miniscrews (Dual top; Jeil Medical, Seoul, Korea) were inserted between the mandibular second premolar and first molar bilaterally to serve as an abutment for SJs fabricated of 0.032-inch wire. Orthodontic tooth movement at all stages was performed with 0.018 × 0.025-inch slot preadjusted brackets (Dentsply- Sankin and Tomy International, Tokyo, Japan) and 0.016 × 0.022-inch improved superelastic nickel-titanium alloy wire (L and H Titan; Tomy International, Tokyo, Japan).

Multibracket appliances and an SJ were placed for distalization of the mandibular arch prior to the backward- left movement of the maxillary arch [Figure 2a]. After the space had been opened mesial to the first molar, an elastomeric chain was placed from the first molar to the premolar and canine to move distally. Anterior retraction and intrusion of the mandibular incisors was performed concurrent with alignment of the dental midline to the facial midline [Figure 2b].

Figure 2: Progressive intraoral photographs.

In the maxilla, unilateral distalization of the right posterior segment was performed with an SJ [Figure 2c]. After molar distalization, anterior retraction toward the right side progressed with the alignment of the midline of the maxillary incisors with the facial midline.

The duration of active treatment was 32 months. After all the appliances were removed, a Hawley-type retainer was placed for the retention.

Treatment results

The patient’s facial esthetics improved with correction of dental midline discrepancies and repositioning of the incisors without additional premolar extraction, which maintained profile esthetics [Figures 3 and 4]. Class I molar and canine relationships were achieved on the right side, and full-cusp Class II molar and Class I canine relationships were achieved on the left side. The overjet was corrected, adequate overbite was maintained, the mandibular molars were uprighted, and the proper contact points were obtained.

Figure 3: Post-treatment facial and intraoral photographs and lateral cephalometric and panoramic radiographs.
Figure 4: Tracing of pretreatment and post-treatment posteroanterior cephalometric radiographs. Abbreviations: (Lo) Right latero-orbitale. (Lo') Left latero-orbitale. (CG) Crista gali. (Me) Lowest point on the midline curve of the symphysis.

Cephalometric superimposition showed molar distalization of both the maxilla and mandible [Figure 5a] except for the left maxillary molars [Figure 5b].

Figure 5: Superimposition of pretreatment and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs. (a) Superimposition of right molars. (b) Superimposition of left molars.

Twenty-nine months after completion of active treatment, occlusion remained good and stable [Figure 6].

Figure 6: Facial and intraoral photographs after 29 months of retention.

DISCUSSION

Midline deviation can be isolated or can occur in combination with dental factors, skeletal asymmetry, or functional shifts of the mandible.[8] Asymmetrical midlines in nongrowing patients are commonly treated with premolar extractions.[9] However, our patient’s previous orthodontic extraction made this case more complicated. The development of skeletal anchorage devices provides new treatment options, particularly in adults.[10] Previous reports have described the successful use of an SJ, which combines the benefits of skeletal anchorage with a simply designed, versatile distalizing appliance. Pithon[6] described correction of dental asymmetry with SJs. Lim et al.[7] reported a method for full-arch distalization with SJs. In our patient, the use of orthodontic miniscrews made it possible to deliver consistent low force levels with SJs for molar distalization without proclination of the incisors. Their use enabled the maxillary dental midline to be moved 2.5 mm to the right and prevented unwanted arch deformity.

CONCLUSION

In this case, midline correction and alignment were obtained with unilateral maxillary distalization and full- arch mandibular distalization without additional premolar extraction. SJs provided efficient unilateral or bilateral molar distalization mechanics in both arches and facilitated midline coordination without requiring patient’s cooperation.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patient understands that her names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , . Treatment strategies for midline discrepancies. Semin Orthod. 1996;2:84-9
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , . Dentofacial effects of asymmetric headgear and cervical headgear with removable plate on unilateral molar distalization. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:584-92
    [Google Scholar]
  3. . A comparative analysis of distal maxillary molar movement produced by a new lingual intra-arch NiTi coil appliance and a magnetic appliance. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:683-95
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , . Maxillary molar distalization with a bone-anchored pendulum appliance. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:650-9
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , . Five years of experience using palatal mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:2492-7
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. . Correction of dental asymmetry using miniscrew-supported sliding jigs. J Clin Orthod. 2013;47:57-62
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , . Molar distalization with a miniscrew-anchored sliding jig. J Clin Orthod. 2011;45:368-77
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , . Effects of unilateral premolar extraction treatment on the dental arch forms of Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152:232-41
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , . Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning-part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;103:395-411
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , . Treatment of an adult patient with vertical maxillary excess using miniscrew fixation. J Clin Orthod. 2003;37:423-8
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections