Introduction: The effects of upper-molar distalization using clear aligners in combination with Class II elastics for anchorage reinforcement have not been fully investigated yet. The objective of this study is to analyze the movement and stress of the whole dentition and further explore guidelines for the selection of traction methods.
Methods: Three-dimensional (3D) finite element models are established to simulate the sequential molar distalization process, including the initial distalization of the 2nd molar (Set I) and the initial distalization of the 1st molar (Set II). Each group set features three models: a control model without Class II elastics (model A), Class II elastics attached to the tooth by buttons (model B), and Class II elastics attached to the aligner by precision cutting (model C). The 3D displacements, proclination angles, periodontal ligament (PDL) hydrostatic stress and alveolar bone von Mises stress in the anterior area are recorded.
Results: In all of the models, the maxillary anterior teeth are labial and mesial proclined, whereas the distal moving molars exhibit distal buccal inclination with an extrusion tendency. With the combination of Class II elastics, the anchorage was effectively reinforced; model C demonstrates superior anchorage reinforcement with lower stress distribution in comparison with model B. The upper canines in model B present an extrusion tendency. Meanwhile, the mandibular dentition in models B and C experience undesired movement tendencies with little discrepancy from each other.
Conclusions: Class II elastics are generally effective for anchorage reinforcement as the upper-molar distalization is performed with clear aligners. Class II elastics attached to an aligner by precision cutting is a superior alternative for maxillary anchorage control in cases that the proclination of upper incisors and extrusion of upper canines are unwanted.
Keywords: Class II elastics; Clear aligners; Finite element analysis; Molar distalization.
© 2022. The Author(s).