Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society.
doi:10.1093/ejo/cjp075 All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
Advance Access Publication 3 December 2009
SUMMARY The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether a Nance or Goshgarian palatal arch was most
effective for prevention of mesial drift, distal tipping, prevention of mesio-palatal rotation of the upper
first permanent molars, and patient comfort and ease of removal. Patients were recruited from a district
general hospital and a specialist orthodontic practice and randomly allocated to a Goshgarian (n = 29)
Introduction
which theoretically will prevent further forward drift.
Transpalatal arches are routinely used in orthodontic However, this concept of cortical anchorage is not
treatment in both the permanent and mixed dentition. Their supported scientifically; joining the molar teeth together,
mode of action can be divided into passive, to stabilize or thus doubling their root surface area and therefore
reinforce anchorage, or active, to enable tooth movement. increasing their resistance to unwanted mesial drift; or
Thus, tooth movement may be undertaken for a single tooth controlling molar rotation and tipping and thus, to some
or blocks of teeth in the horizontal, sagittal, and vertical extent, restricting forward movement of the upper first
directions. A number of active tooth movements are possible permanent molars.
with a palatal arch, including derotation of unilateral or The Nance (Nance, 1947) and Goshgarian (Goshgarian,
bilateral rotated molars (Cooke and Wreakes, 1978; Ten 1972) palatal arches (Figure 1) have been described in the
Hoeve, 1985; Dahlquist et al., 1996; Ingervall et al., 1996). literature as providing reinforcement of anchorage, but no
Transpalatal arches may also be used to correct molar comparison of the effectiveness of two types of palatal arch
crossbites, which is well described in a prospective clinical have been scientifically evaluated.
study by Ingervall et al. (1995). Further reports in the Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate whether a
literature describe the use of palatal arches as a mode for Nance or a Goshgarian palatal arch was the most effective
asymmetric or symmetric distalization (Ten Hoeve, 1985; for prevention of mesial drift, distal tipping, prevention of
Mandurino and Balducci, 2001) and buccal or lingual root mesio-palatal rotation of the upper first permanent molars,
torque of the upper molars (Baldini and Luder, 1982). and patient comfort and ease of removal.
More commonly, palatal arches are used to reinforce
anchorage and prevent mesial movement of the upper first
Subjects and method
permanent molars during treatment. The anchorage value
is increased by maintaining a fixed intermolar width Approval for the study was obtained from North Manchester
across the arch, so that as the molars loose anchorage by (03/NM/626) and Cheshire (M248/03) Local Regional
drifting forwards, their roots engage the buccal cortex, Ethics Committees.
172 N.Stivaros et al.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The remaining fixed appliance was then fitted using MBT in a random order so the patients T1 and T2 models were
prescription with an archwire sequence of 0.016 inch nickel not measured consecutively. Random error was reduced by
titanium (Ni-Ti), 0.018 0.025 inch Ni-Ti and 0.019 measuring all study models twice and calculating a mean.
0.025 inch stainless steel. During the levelling and aligning
phase of treatment, which comprised a 6 month observation Examiner calibration and reliability
period, no mechanics were used that may have brought the
upper first permanent molars more mesially than would be The examiner was trained in the use of the laser scanner
assumed by loss of anchorage alone. In addition, no canine and calibration was carried out using four plaster calibration
lacebacks were placed. The palatal arch was removed at the cubes with different known heights and widths that had
clinical end point of 6 months (T2). The patients were then been verified by the Engineering Department, University
sent away for 1 week and told to brush their palate. This was of Manchester, UK as the gold standard. Intra-examiner
to ensure that the palatal mucosa in the Nance palatal arch reliability of the measurements was assessed by
group was not swollen or hyperplastic when the impression re-measuring 20 study models after an interval of at least
Figure 2 Upper first permanent molar mesial movement (a and b), tipping (c), and rotation (e and d).
terms of prevention of mesial movement or distal tipping (P > In contrast, there was a statistically significant difference
0.05). The average mesial movement for both groups was in in the prevention of mesio-palatal rotation between the palatal
the order of 0.51 mm over the 6 month period. Overall, there arch groups. The Goshgarian palatal arch group exhibited a
was, in fact, mesial tipping for both groups and this was in the small amount of disto-palatal rotation of around 4.5 degrees
order of 23 degrees, with wide standard deviations. compared with the Nance at just over 2 degrees (P = 0.017).
A CLINICAL COMPARISON OF TWO PALATAL ARCHES 175
This was surprising as the palatal arches were not activated of prevention of mesial drift, distal tipping, or prevention of
for disto-palatal rotation but there was still a tendency for this mesio-palatal rotation of the upper first permanent molars.
movement to occur between 24 degrees in both groups. However, there was a difference between the two groups in
terms of increased discomfort experienced by the patients
Patient discomfort scores and ease of removal of the palatal wearing the Nance palatal arch.
arches The results of this study revealed that the amount and
type of tooth movement from the two appliances was small.
There was a statistically significant difference in discomfort
When the average molar movement between the right and
scores between the two groups, with the Nance palatal arch
left sides was measured for each palatal arch type, the
reported to be more uncomfortable (median Likert score = 2)
Goshgarian palatal arch allowed the molars to mesialize
compared with the Goshgarian (median Likert score = 1;
slightly more than the Nance (0.94 versus 0.72 mm) over a
P = 0.001). No gagging problems were reported with either
6 month period. These values were very small and indeed
palatal arch design. Two Nance palatal arches, but no
there was no statistically or clinically significant difference
Table 2 Comparison of Nance and Goshgarian palatal arches for upper first permanent molar mesial movement, tipping, and rotation.
Tooth movement Palatal arch Mean (SD) SE mean t value P value 95% Confidence interval
Mesial movement (mm) Goshgarian 0.98 (1.02) 0.20 0.68 0.50 0.44 to 0.90
Nance 0.72 (1.33) 0.26
Rotation * () Goshgarian 4.43 (3.74) 0.75 2.50 0.02 0.44 to 4.19
Nance 2.11 (2.68) 0.55
Tipping * () Goshgarian 2.09 (4.29) 1.07 0.37 0.72 3.07 to 4.41
Nance 2.75 (6.04) 1.46
*+ve value indicates disto-palatal rotation or distal tipping; ve value indicates mesio-palatal rotation or mesial tipping.
176 N.Stivaros et al.