References

Littlewood S, Tait A, Mandall N, Lewis D. Orthodontics: the role of removable appliances in contemporary orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2001; 191:304-310
Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM.London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014
Kurol J, Bjerklin K. Ectopic eruption of maxillary first permanent molars: familial tendencies. Am Soc Dent Children. 1982; 49
Bjerklin K, Kurol J. Ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar: etiologic factors. Am J Orthod. 1983; 84:147-155
Canut JA, Raga C. Morphological analysis of cases with ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar. Eur J Orthod. 1983; 5:249-253
Pulver F. The etiology and prevalence of ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molar. Am Soc Dent Children. 1968; 35:138-146
Bjerklin K, Kurol J, Paulin G. Ectopic eruption of the maxillary first permanent molars in children with cleft lip and/or palate. Eur J Orthod. 1993; 15:535-540
Bjerklin K, Kurol J, Valentin J. Ectopic eruption of maxillary first permanent molars and association with other tooth and developmental disturbances. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14:369-375
Halterman CW. A simple technique for the treatment of ectopically erupting permanent first molars. J Am Dent Assoc. 1982; 105:1031-1033
Kennedy DB. Clinical tips for the Halterman appliance. Pediatr Dent. 2007; 29:327-329
Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J. Orthodontics part 5: appliance choices. Br Dent J. 2004; 196
Leighton BC. The early signs of malocclusion. Trans Eur Orthod Soc. 1969; 45:353-368
Sandler P, Madahar A, Murray A. Anterior open bite: aetiology and management. Dent Update. 2011; 38:522-532
Seehra J, Fleming PS, DiBiase AT. Orthodontic treatment of localised gingival recession associated with traumatic anterior crossbite. Aust Orthod J. 2009; 25:76-81
Sandler J, Murray A, Thiruvenkatachari B, Gutierrez R, Speight P, O'Brien K. Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: a 3-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146:10-20
O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:128-137

Fixed versus removable appliances – which one to choose?

From Volume 45, Issue 9, October 2018 | Pages 874-881

Authors

Mustafa Elhussein

BDS, DClinDent Ortho, MFD RCSI, MFDS RCPS, IMOrth RCPS, MOrth RCSEd

Specialty Registrar in Orthodontics, Chesterfield Royal Hospital and Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield

Articles by Mustafa Elhussein

Jonathan Sandler

BDS (Hons), MSc, PhD, MOrth RCS, FDS RCPS

Consultant Orthodontist, Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK

Articles by Jonathan Sandler

Abstract

The use of removable appliances in modern clinical orthodontic practice can generally be considered an out-dated treatment modality for managing malocclusions. Their use and popularity has declined considerably largely due to their inefficiency at achieving significant quality tooth movement. There are, however, a couple of specific indications where removable appliances come into their own. This article will present and discuss several clinical scenarios where one technique clearly has significant advantages over the other.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Orthodontists and general dental practitioners (GDPs) should be aware of the situations where removable appliances provide a solution in modern clinical orthodontics practice, but also when the fixed counterpart will provide a much more efficient and effective method of moving teeth.

Article

The majority of removable appliances are advocated for starting orthodontic treatment in the mixed dentition, and are also used as an adjunct to fixed appliances in treatment.1 There are very few significant clinical benefits to the patient as a result of their use; and perhaps few that could not be done better and more efficiently with fixed appliances. In most instances the disadvantages of fitting removable appliances outweigh their potential advantages.

Advantages of removable appliances:

Disadvantages of removable appliances:

Ectopic eruption of maxillary first permanent molars occurs in around 4% of the population. Radiographic examination can reveal the first permanent molar encroaching or impacting upon the distal aspect of the second deciduous molar and this clinical presentation is most commonly encountered in the maxillary arch, either unilaterally or bilaterally.3

This clinical scenario can often lead to:

A number of aetiological factors have been suggested as predisposing to/associated with the ectopic eruption or impaction of first permanent molars:

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available