ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06631131Updated Feb 5, 2025

Distalization With Aligners: Anchorage Options

An interventional study of Distalization with clear aligners supported by Class II elastics and Distalization with clear aligners supported by miniscrew in Class II Malocclusion and Class II Malocclusion, Division 1, sponsored by Bezmialem Vakif University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 15 Years to 25 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-02-05.

Sponsored by Bezmialem Vakif University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was Aug 2023, 3 years 2 months ago, and no results have been posted to the registry.
  • Registered 2 years 8 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Dec 2021, registered Sep 2024).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
22
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
15 Years to 25 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Background: To compare the dentoskeletal effects of Class II elastic anchorage and infrazygomatic crest (IZC) miniscrew anchorage in sequential maxillary molar distalization using clear aligners.

Methods: A total of 22 patients with Angle Class II malocclusion treated with clear aligners and maxillary molar distalization were included. Based on the anchorage method patients were divided into two groups: Class II elastics (Group 1) or IZC miniscrews (Group 2). Lateral cephalometric radiographs and digital models were obtained from all patients before treatment (T0) and after distalization of the second premolars (T1) to assess skeletal and dental changes. Geomagic Control X was used to superimpose the digital models.

Read the detailed description

The data for this study were obtained from patients who presented for treatment at the Department of Orthodontics at Bezmialem Vakif University Faculty of Dentistry. All patients were treated with clear aligners (Invisalign®, Align Technology, CA, USA) at Bezmialem University Hospital. Sequential distalization (50%) was planned in the maxillary arch. For each aligner, a staging of 0.25 mm was determined. Distalization starts with the second molars, then the first molars after half of the second molar movement is completed, and finally the premolars. In the ClinCheck planning, 3 or 4 mm vertical rectangular attachments were placed from the second molar to the canine and were bevelled mesially to enhance the distalization forces. The patients were divided into two groups, those who were treated with sequential distalization with aligners supported by Class II elastics (group 1) or IZC miniscrews (group 2). In group 1, with the beginning of the movement of the upper first molars, Class II intermaxillary elastics were used from precision cuts of the upper canines to the buttons on the lower first molars. In group 2, IZC miniscrews were inserted in the IZC region between the upper molars in both sides before first molar movement started. The same intramaxillary elastics were used from precision cuts of the upper canines to the IZC miniscrew. The use of intra/intermaxillary elastics was started with the initiation of upper first molar movement to prevent anchorage loss and maxillary incisor proclination. Both groups were instructed to wear the elastics and aligners a minimum of 22 hours per day using a 10-day aligner wear protocol. Maxillary third molars were extracted before treatment.

Patients were scanned by iTero 5D Element intraoral scanner and radiographs were taken before treatment (T0) and after distalization of the second premolar (T1).

Cephalometric radiographs were obtained from all patients and these radiographs were used for two-dimensional measurements.Digital tracing and measurements of the cephalometric radiographs were performed using NemoCeph version 6.0 software. Angular dental measurements were performed between the long axis of the teeth and the sella-nasion (S-N) plane using Image J software. The long axis was determined as a line through the incisal edge and the root apex for the incisors, through the buccal cusp tip and the root apex for the premolars, and through the centroid and the furcation for the molars. Digital models were exported from OrthoCAD software as stereolithography (STL) files and imported into Geomagic Control X software for three-dimensional (3D) model comparison. All digital models were superimposed using the local best fit algorithm. A reference area in the palatal region was used for the model superimposition and 50 iteration points were defined in this area for the superimpositions.

After model superimposition, reference points of the teeth were selected on the two models to enable linear measurements. These points were the mesiobuccal cusp tips of the maxillary molars and the buccal cusp tips of the premolars. These reference points were marked on the T0 and T1 models and measurements were taken to observe changes on all three axis. In linear measurements,

  1. X-axis represent buccolingual (transversal) differences (X+ in the buccal direction and X- in the palatal direction);
  2. Y-axis represent mesiodistal (sagittal) differences (Y+ in the distal direction and Y- in the mesial direction); and
  3. Z-axis represent vertical differences (Z+ indicating extrusion and Z- indicating intrusion).

For angular measurements, reference points and vectors were identified on 3D models. These points were the mesiobuccal and mesiopalatal cusp tips of the molars and the buccal and palatal cusp tips of the premolars. The angles between reference vectors were measured. Rotational movements were measured using the XY-axis, with positive values indicating mesiobuccal rotation and negative values indicating distobuccal rotation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Class II Malocclusion
  • Class II Malocclusion, Division 1

Keywords

  • Class II malocclusion
  • Clear aligners
  • Distalization
  • Miniscrew anchorage
03

In context

Malocclusion, Angle Class II

124 studies on the registry are indexed under Malocclusion, Angle Class II; 19 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 22 is below the median of 34 across 115 interventional studies indexed under Malocclusion, Angle Class II.

Browse Malocclusion, Angle Class II studies →

Lead sponsor

Bezmialem Vakif University is the lead sponsor of 354 studies on the registry; 59 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
15 Years to 25 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

  1. Class II molar relationship,
  2. mild or moderate dental crowding on both arches,
  3. previous extraction or absence of the upper third molars,
  4. good compliance to orthodontic treatment,
  5. availability of initial and progress stereothography (STL) files of intraoral scans and lateral cephalometric radiographs.

Exclusion Criteria:

Exclusion criteria were

  1. severe dental crowding on both arches,
  2. Class II subdivision malocclusion,
  3. severe skeletal Class II malocclusion requiring orthognathic surgery,
  4. presence of impacted or supernumerary teeth,
  5. tooth extraction (except third molars),
  6. poor compliance to orthodontic treatment,
  7. craniofacial and dentofacial disorders, syndromes, or systemic diseases impacting bone metabolism or tooth movement.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
22 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Distalization with clear aligners supported by Class II elastics

    Group 1: these patients were treated with sequential distalization with aligners supported by Class II elastics.

    Device: Distalization with clear aligners supported by Class II elastics

  • Active comparator
    Distalization with clear aligners supported by miniscrew

    Group 2: these patients were treated with sequential distalization with aligners supported by IZC miniscrews.

    Device: Distalization with clear aligners supported by miniscrew

Interventions

  • DeviceDistalization with clear aligners supported by Class II elastics

    Sequential distalization (50%) with clear aligners was planned in the maxillary arch for each patient. ). In group 1, with the beginning of the movement of the upper first molars, Class II intermaxillary elastics were used from precision cuts of the upper canines to the buttons on the lower first molars for supporting distalization movement.

  • DeviceDistalization with clear aligners supported by miniscrew

    Sequential distalization (50%) with clear aligners was planned in the maxillary arch for each patient. In group 2, IZC miniscrews were inserted in the IZC region between the upper molars in both sides before first molar movement started. The same intramaxillary elastics were used from precision cuts of the upper canines to the IZC miniscrew for supporting distalization movement.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Evaluation of the Dentoskeletal Effects of Maxillary Molar Distalization with Clear Aligners: Class II Elastic Anchorage vs. Miniscrew Anchorage

    Lateral cephalometric radiographs and digital models were obtained from all patients before treatment and after distalization of the second premolars to assess skeletal and dental changes. Digital tracing and measurements of the cephalometric radiographs were performed by the same investigator using NemoCeph software. Angular dental measurements were performed between the long axis of the teeth and the sella-nasion (S-N) plane using Image J software. Geomagic Control X was used to superimpose the digital models and measurement of dental movements.

    Time frame: Patients were collected and treatmets were started up to 9 months. At 12 weeks, miniscrews were inserted in group 2 and elastics were started to be used in each group. Final data were collected up to 20 months.

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Bezmialem Vakif University
    İstanbul, 34307, Turkey
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — The data of this study belong to the PhD thesis and the thesis has not yet been defended.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 5, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06631131
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 8, 2024
Start date
Dec 30, 2021
Primary completion
Aug 30, 2023
Completion
Dec 26, 2023
Last update
Feb 5, 2025

Study contacts

Ezgi Sunal Aktürk, Assistant professor
study director · University of Health Sciences, Hamidiye Faculty of Dental Medicine, Department of Orthodontics
Ezgi Kösen, PhD student
principal investigator · Bezmialem Vakif University,Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Orthodontics,

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion