Evaluation of Skeletal and Dental Effects of Lower Lingual Arches

Objective: A lower lingual arch is usually recommended as a holding device to maintain arch length and to prevent mesial migration of the mandibular first molars. Despite its widespread use, comparatively little is known about the effects of a lower lingual holding arch on preservation of lower arch dimensions and tooth position and the impact of the device on mandibular growth. The aim of this study is to evaluate the skeletal and dental effects of the lower lingual holding arch with regard to arch dimension, positions of mandibular molars and incisors, and usual mandibular growth. Study design: Thirty-four children (18 males and 16 females) who needed space maintainers were included in the present study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they were missing second primary molars on one or both sides. Group I comprised 16 children (8 males and 8 females, average age 8.8 ± 0.9 years) with a missing second primary molar on one side; Group II comprised 18 children (10 males and 8 females, average age 8 ± 0.7 years) with extractions on both sides. Lateral cephalograms, dental pantomograms, and study casts of the patients were taken at the beginning and the end of the study period. Average treatment time was 20.4 ± 4 months. Results: Lower incisors moved forward and Incisor Mandibular Plane Angle (IMPA°) increased in both treatment groups. Statistically significant differences between the groups were found when comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment arch dimension and position of mandibular molars. Results were better for lingual arches with extraction on one side than with extraction on both sides Conclusions: A lingual arch seems to be an effective tool for maintaining arch length, and was not found to impair mandibular growth.

lingual arch, Space maintainer, Lower incisors, Mandibular growth

1. Davenport I. The significance of the natural form and arrangement of the dental arches of man, with a consideration of the changes which occur as a result of their artificial derangement by filling or by the extraction of teeth. Dent Cosmos 29:413–39,1887.

2. Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, Gill DS. Space maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent 19:155–62,2009.

3. Lin Y-T, Lin W-H, Lin Y-TJ. Immediate and six-month space changes after premature loss of a primary maxillary first molar. J Am Dent Assoc 138:362–8,2007.

4. Daly D, Walker PO. Space maintenance in the primary and early mixed denti-tion. J In Dent Assoc 36:16–7,19–21,1990.

5. Brill WA. The distal shoe space maintainer chairside fabrication and clinical performance. Pediatr Dent 24:561–5,2002

6. Northway WM, Wainright RL, Demirjian A. Effects of premature loss of deciduous molars. Angle Orthod 54:295–329,1984.

7. Mershom J V. Band and lingual arch technic. Int J Orthod III:195–203,1917.

8. Gianelly AA. Leeway space and the resolution of crowding in the mixed dentition. Semin Orthod 1:188–94,1995.

9. Rebellato J, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK, Isaacson RJ, Davidovitch M, Vroom K. Lower arch perimeter preservation using the lingual arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:449–56,1997.

10. Singer J. The effect of the passive lingual archwire on the lower denture. Angle Orthod 44:146–55,1974.

11. Villalobos FJ, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Longitudinal assessment of vertical and sagittal control in the mandibular arch by the mandibular fixed lingual arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:366–70,2000.

12. Letti HCB, Rizzatto SMD, de Menezes LM, Reale CS, de Lima EM, Martinelli FL. Sagittal changes in lower incisors by the use of lingual arch. Dental Press J Orthod 18:29–34,2013.

13. De Baets J, Chiarini M. The pseudo-Class I: a newly defined type of maloc-clusion. J Clin Orthod 29:73–88,1995.

14. Thilander B. Dentoalveolar development in subjects with normal occlusion. A longitudinal study between the ages of 5 and 31 years. Eur J Orthod 31:109–20.2009

15. Bishara SE, Ortho D, Jakobsen JR, Treder J, Nowak A. Arch length changes from 6 weeks to 45 years. Angle Orthod 68:69–74,1998.

16. Owais A I, Rousan ME, Badran S a, Abu Alhaija ES. Effectiveness of a lower lingual arch as a space holding device. Eur J Orthod 33:37–42,2011.

17. Robert E. Moyers. Handbook of orthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago; 1973.

18. Brennan MM, Gianelly A A. The use of the lingual arch in the mixed dentition to resolve incisor crowding. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop 117:81–5,2000.

19. Enlow DH, Harris DB. A study of the postnatal growth of the human mandible. Am J Orthod 50:25–50,1964.

20. Watanabe E, Demirjian A, Buschang P. Longitudinal post-eruptive mandib-ular tooth movements of males and females. Eur J Orthod 21:459–68,1999.

21. Ochoa BK, Nanda RS.Comparison of maxillary and mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:148-59,2004.

22. Jamison JE, Bishara SE, Peterson LC, DeKock WH, Kremenak CR. Longi-tudinal changes in the maxilla and the maxillary-mandibular relationship between 8 and 17 years of age. Am J Orthod 82:30–217,1982.

23. Weinstein S. Minimal forces in tooth movement. Am J Orthod 53:881–903,1967.

24. Proffit WR, Chastain BB, Norton LA. Linguopalatal pressure in children. Am J Orthod 55:154–66,1969.

25. Christiansen RL, Evans CA, Sue SK. Resting tongue pressures. Angle Orthod 49:92–7,1979.

26. Kydd WL. Maximum forces exerted on the dentition by the perioral and lingual musculature. J Am Dent. Assoc 55:646–51,1957.

27. Winders RV. Recent findings in myometric research. Angle Orthod 32:38–43,1962.

28. Kato Y, Kuroda T, Togawa T. Perioral force measurement by a radiotelem-etry device. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop 95:410–4,1989.

29. Chiba Y, Motoyoshi M, Namura S. Tongue pressure on loop of transpalatal arch during deglutition. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 123:29–34,2003.

30. Xu K, Zeng J, Xu T. Effect of an intraoral appliance on tongue pres-sure measured by force exerted during swallowing. Am J Orthod Dentofa-cial Orthop 149:55-61,2016.

31. Viglianisi A. Effects of lingual arch used as space maintainer on mandibular arch dimension: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 138:382.e1–4; 382–3,2010.

32. Kinzinger G, Fritz U, Diedrich P. Combined therapy with pendulum and lingual arch appliances in the early mixed dentition. J Orofac Orthop 64:201-13,2003.

33. Björk A. Facial growth in man, studied with the aid of metallic implants. Acta Odontol Scand 13:9-34,1955.

34. Nanda RS, Ghosh J. Longitudinal changes in the sagittal relationship of maxilla and mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107:79-90,1995.

35. Burstone CJ. Precision lingual arches. Active applications J Clin Orthod 23:101-9,1989.

36. Deberardinis M, Stretesky T, Sinha P, Nanda RS. Evaluation of the vertical holding appliance in treatment of high-angle patients. Am J Orthod Dento-facial Orthop 117:700-5,2000.

37. Fichera G, Greco M, Leonardi R. Effectiveness of the passive lingual arch for E space maintenance in subjects with anterior or posterior rotation of the mandible: a retrospective study. Med Princ Pract 20:165-70,2011.

38. Janson GR, Metaxas A, Woodside DG. Variation in maxillary and mandib-ular molar and incisor vertical dimension in 12-year-old subjects with excess, normal, and short lower anterior face height. Am J Orthod Dentofa-cial Orthop 106:409-18,1994.

39. Schendel SA, Eisenfeld J, Bell WH, Epker BN, Mishelevich DJ. The long face syndrome: vertical maxillary excess. Am J Orthod 70:398-408,1976.