Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Reciprocal force generated by two sliding jigs: An alternative mechanic for molar protraction


Objective: When a first molar is lost, orthodontic replacement with second and third molars would be an excellent treatment option. There are some side effects that tend to occur during molar protraction, such as mesial tipping of molar that could increase the time required to correct. These side effects can be avoided by understanding the biomechanical variables affecting molar protraction. The author tries to present the modification of sliding jigs, instead of the power arm function, with additional of lingual force, for molar protraction.Methods: This case report describes the management of a 23-years-old woman who was missing left mandibular first molar, had class III skeletal profile, and anterior crossbite. After anterior crossbite correction, the left mandibular first molar extraction spaces were closed by protraction of the second and third molars. Mesial tipping was detected in the early protraction phase when using conventional method. Consequently, uprighting procedure was done and protraction was continued using reciprocal force generated by two sliding jigs and lingual buttons to achieve bodily movement of tooth.Results: The result was excellent, the space was closed without tipping and rotation.Conclusion: The presented article provides an alternative mechanic for molar protraction using sliding jigs and how it can be designed to achieve predictable result.


  1. Mimoza C, Vito MA. The first permanent molar most affected by dental caries-a longitudinal study. Int J Dent Med 2018;4: 36-41.
  2. Katta A, Karthik K, Vannala V, et al. Mandibular second molar protraction with temporary anchorage devices - a case report. Int J Dent Sci Res 2014;2: 1-4.
  3. Marusamy KO, Ramasamy S, Wali O. Molar protraction using miniscrews (temporary anchorage device) with simultaneous correction of lateral crossbite: An orthodontic case report. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8: 271-276.
  4. Raveli TB, Raveli DB, de-Mathias AKC, et al. Molar uprighting: a considerable and safe decision to avoid prosthetic treatment. Open Dent J 2017;11: 466-475.
  5. Pawinru AS. Angulation change of the third molar tooth in orthodontic treatment. J Dentomaxillofac Sci 2017;2: 32-36.
  6. Stepovich M. A clinical study on closing edentulous spaces in the mandible. Angle Orthod 1979;49: 227-233.
  7. Janakiraman N, Alrushaid S, Upadhyay M, et al. Biomechanics of lower second-molar protraction using a new appliance. JCO Inc 2016: 736-744.
  8. Kojima Y, Fukui H, Miyajima K. The effects of friction and flexural rigidity of the archwire on canine movement in sliding mechanics: a numerical simulation with a 3-dimensional finite element method. Am J Orthod 2006;130: 275e1-275e10.
  9. Modia P, Aggarwalb S, Bhatiac P, et al. Smart sliding hook as a ready to use auxillary in orthodontist's inventory. Singapore Dent J 2016;37: 27-32.
  10. Nihara J, Gielo-Perczak K, Cardinal L, et al. Finite element analysis of mandibular molar protraction mechanics using miniscrews. Eur J Orthod 2014: 1-6.
  11. Bantleon HP. Modified lingual lever arm technique: biomechanical considerations. In: Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. USA: Saunders Company; 1997.
  12. Smith RJ, Burstone CJ. Mechanics of tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1984;85: 294-307.

How to Cite

Fashih, F. R., Kasita, A., Hardjono, S., & Suparwitri, S. (2021). Reciprocal force generated by two sliding jigs: An alternative mechanic for molar protraction. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science, 6(3), 200–203.




Search Panel