Orthodontic magnets. A study of force and field pattern, biocompatibility and clinical effects
- PMID: 7801229
Orthodontic magnets. A study of force and field pattern, biocompatibility and clinical effects
Abstract
Magnetic forces have been incorporated into orthodontic mechanics during recent years. However, the biocompatibility of magnet alloys and the possible risk of harmful or unusual reactions in tissues exposed to static magnetic fields have been characterized as inconsistent and often contradictory. It has also been questioned whether magnetic forces have significant advantages over traditional mechanics. The present series of studies aimed to analyse the force and field properties, the biocompatibility and the clinical effects of rare earth magnets as well as to compare the efficiency of tooth movement between magnets and another force system. Samarium-cobalt magnets for molar distalization were tested in experimental models for force and field properties. The cytotoxicity of different magnet alloys (rare earth types) as well as of clinically used and recycled magnets was assessed by two in vitro methods, the millipore filter method and an extraction method. The effect of static magnetic fields on human gingival tissue and dental pulp was examined histologically for alterations in cell pattern and cell morphology. The effects of using repelling samarium-cobalt magnets for simultaneous distalization of maxillary first and second molars were analysed in individuals with Class II malocclusion. The efficiency of molar distalization was also intra-individually compared between repelling magnets and superelastic NiTi-coils in individuals with Class II malocclusion and deep bite. The magnet forces decreased approximately with the reciprocal square of the separation distance between the magnets. No fatigue of force over time could be seen. The static magnetic fields were weak and had a limited extent and the flux density dropped exponentially in all directions with increased distance from the magnets, implying a small exposure area when the magnets are used clinically. Rare earth magnets showed good biocompatibility, particularly coated magnets. However, uncoated samarium-cobalt magnets showed significant cytotoxicity. It was also found that stainless-steel-coated samarium-cobalt magnets could be recycled with maintained good biocompatibility. After exposure to static magnetic fields, normal clinical and histological conditions in the human gingival tissue and normal histological features in the human dental pulp were found. Repelling magnets were effective in producing maxillary molar distalization but some side effects like anchorage loss and molar tipping were found. The superelastic coils were shown to be even more efficient than the repelling magnets for maxillary molar distalization in individuals with Class II malocclusion and deep bite.
Similar articles
-
Repelling magnets versus superelastic nickel-titanium coils in simultaneous distal movement of maxillary first and second molars.Angle Orthod. 1994;64(3):189-98. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0189:RMVSNC>2.0.CO;2. Angle Orthod. 1994. PMID: 8060015
-
A comparative analysis of distal maxillary molar movement produced by a new lingual intra-arch Ni-Ti coil appliance and a magnetic appliance.Eur J Orthod. 2000 Dec;22(6):683-95. doi: 10.1093/ejo/22.6.683. Eur J Orthod. 2000. PMID: 11212604
-
Tissue response to space closure in monkeys: a comparison of orthodontic magnets and superelastic coil springs.Eur J Orthod. 1996 Dec;18(6):581-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/18.6.581. Eur J Orthod. 1996. PMID: 9009422
-
Treatment effects of intraoral appliances with conventional anchorage designs for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization: a literature review.Eur J Orthod. 2008 Dec;30(6):558-71. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn047. Epub 2008 Sep 27. Eur J Orthod. 2008. PMID: 18820306 Review.
-
An alternative approach to distalizing a maxillary molar: case report.J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997 Winter;21(2):105-7. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997. PMID: 9484100 Review.
Cited by
-
The myokinetic control interface: tracking implanted magnets as a means for prosthetic control.Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 7;7(1):17149. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17464-1. Sci Rep. 2017. PMID: 29215082 Free PMC article.
-
Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 23;2013(10):CD008375. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008375.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24155018 Free PMC article.
-
Testing the cytotoxicity of metal alloys used as magnetic prosthetic devices.J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003 Apr;14(4):335-45. doi: 10.1023/a:1022931915709. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2003. PMID: 15348458
-
Cytotoxic effect of indigenously fabricated dental magnets for application in prosthodontics.J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018 Jan-Mar;18(1):29-34. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_114_17. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018. PMID: 29430139 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Other Literature Sources