MAGNETS IN ORTHODONTICS

Dr. Anupriya*1 , Dr.Mythree*2 Dr. MS Kannan*3

1 Post graduate student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sree Balaji
Dental College & Hospital
2.Senior lecturer, , Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sree Balaji Dental
College & Hospital

3.Professor & Head of the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sree Balaji
Dental College & Hospital

INTRODUCTION
 The word magnet in Greek meant "stone from Magnesia“
 Magnesia was a town in ancient Greece where ‘Magnetite ore’ was found which were
referred to as lodestones.
 From magnetite ore, magnets were derived.
 The authorities on bio magnetic fields concluded no adverse bio effects were to be
expected from magnetic fields on human environment.
 These proven reports had given entry to magnets in the field of medicine and dentistry
several decades ago
HISTORY
The first use of magnets in Dentistry was by Behrman and Egan in 1953 who used it
as implants for denture retention.
The use of magnets for orthodontic tooth movement was first described by Blechman
and Smiley who bonded magnets made of Aluminum- Nickel - Cobalt to the teeth of
adolescent cats to produce tooth movement.
Other rare earth magnets, Samarium. - Cobalt, introduced by Becker in 1970 .
All magnets have magnetic fields around them. The field emerges from one pole of
the magnet conventionally known as ‘N’ pole and goes to other pole that is ‘S’ pole
PROPERTIES OF MAGNETS
All magnets have magnetic fields around them. The field emerges from one
pole of the magnet conventionally known as ‘N’ pole and goes to other pole that is ‘S’
pole
Coulomb’s law
 All magnets obey this law which states that ‘force between two magnetic poles is
proportional to their magnitudes (M) and inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between them.’
 F = m1xm2 /r 2
 m1, m2 = magnitude r= distance
 The rare earth magnets give maximum force at short distance in comparison to
elastics, which attain maximum force at more distance.

Curie point
 Pierre Curie observed that magnets tend to lose their properties at specific temperature
which causes their domain to return to random distribution.
 This point of temperature is called Curie Point.
 Curie point—about 570 °C (1,060 °F) for the common magnetic mineral. Beyond the
Curie point—for example, 770 °C (1,418 °F) for iron—atoms that behave as tiny
magnets spontaneously align themselves in certain magnetic materials.
 Rare earth magnets tend to loose their magnetism at room temperature.
 To overcome this in orthodontics it has been combined with other element such as
boron so that they can be incorporated into appliances and heat stabilized.

Important intra oral properties

 No energy loss.
 Centripetal attraction in all 3 spatial dimensions gives the operator complete teeth
control on precise engagement.
 Intra oral magnets are attracted to each other even if soft or hard tissues are
interspersed in the gap between the two magnets eg: impacted canines.
  When compared to elastics which shows force degradation & deteriorate over a short
time, the rare earth magnets can maintain constant energy if protected against
corrosion, curie temperature etc

TYPES OF MAGNETIC MATERIALS

In various dental applications, the following materials have been used:

• Platinum-Cobalt (Pt-Co)
• Aluminum-nickel-cobalt (Al-Ni-Co)
• Ferrite
• Chromium-cobalt-iron (Cr-Co-Fe)
• Samarium-cobalt (Sm-Co)
• Neodymium-iron-boron (Nd-Fe-B)
 Platinum-Cobalt (Pt-Co) ,Aluminum-nickel-cobalt (Al-Ni-Co) and Ferrite were
expensive and bulky and were used with their limitations till rare earth cobalt magnets
were developed in 1970.
 Finally,rare earth magnets were found to be suitable for orthodontic use .
Samarium cobalt magnets
 Made from alloys of rare earth elements, they are strong permanent magnets. As they
are stronger than ferrite or alnico magnets, the magnetic field produced by them is
also higher.
 Superior magnetic properties when compared to other rare earth magnets
 Corrosion resistance is high comparatively since they are parylene coated to prevent
leaking of toxic substances.
 Even with a flat shape there is hardly any demagnetization making it ideal and small
for orthodontic use.
 The force necessary in orthodontics can be obtained from a small size of the magnet
measurable in millimeters

Neodymium Iron Boron magnets

 A neodymium magnet the most widely used type of rare-earth magnet.
 Neodymium magnets are the strongest type of permanent magnet commercially
available
 This new alloy had magnetic properties superior even to those of cobalt-samarium.
  They are less costly to produce than Sm-Co alloys, and hence are now the main rare
earth permanent magnet in use today
 This type of rare earth magnet has an extremely high magnetic saturation, good
resistance to demagnetization, and the highest value of energy production.
 Their excellent magnetic properties allowed the production of smaller sized magnets

Samarium-Iron-Nitride Magnets
 These magnets may be a superior choice to NdFeB magnets in the future
 since they have high resistance to demagnetization, high magnetism, and better
resistance to temperature and corrosion.
 This material is still under development, but could become available for medical and
dental applications in the future.
ADVANTAGES OF MAGNETS
 It eliminates patient cooperation, as it is totally operator controlled.
 It produces less pain & discomfort.
 Continuous force is exerted.
 Treatment time is reduced

 Magnetic tooth movement is biologically more acceptable with reduced periodontal

disturbance, root resorption
 No friction.
 Appliance adjustments are minimal; therefore it takes less chair time.
 Better force, working range control is achieved by maintaining the distance between
magnets.
 Better directional force control
DISADVANTAGES
 Magnets suffer significantly from tarnish and corrosion.
 Tarnish and corrosion products are cytotoxic.
 Bulk of magnets is still a concern in space limiting applications.
 Cost is also an unfavorable factor.
 Bitterness.
MAGNETIC FORCE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
 Expansion of arch (Alexander, in 1987)
  Distalization / mesialisation of teeth (Anthony Gianelly & others, 1988)
 Class II correction with functional appliance (Ali Darendeliler, 1993)
 Intrusion of posterior teeth in open bite cases (Delligner,1986)
 Closure of diastema (Muller, 1984)
 Extrusion of fractured teeth (Bondemark and Kurol, 1997)

MOLAR DISTALISATION
 Gianelly et al., 1998 used intra arch repelling magnets to distalize the maxillary
molars.
 The repelling surfaces of the magnets were brought into contact by passing 014” SS
wire through the loop on the auxiliary wire, then tying back anterior to the magnets.
Force extended by the magnets began at 200-225gm then as the space opened, with
1mm of space between magnets, the applied force was only 75 gms.
 After 7 weeks, the molars were in class I relation
 The molars were distalised at a rate of 0.75-1mm per month, without significant
anchorage loss.
 Molar movement was reported to be faster by at least 1mm/month in the absence of
second molars and resulted in less anchorage loss.
 Upper and lower occlusal views 7 weeks after magnet distalization.
 Lingual arch wire in mandible will be extended distally to retain distalized lower right
molar

ORTHODONTIC EXTRUSION
 The magnetic system consisted of either one or two cylindrical parylene- or stainless
steel-coated, neodymium-iron-boron magnets placed in the coronal part of the
remaining root.
 Attractive magnets have been used for orthodontic extrusion.
 The roots were extruded 2 to 3 mm with a force range from 50 to 240 N during a
treatment period of 9 to 11 weeks.
 Good force control at short, distances, no friction, and no material fatigue of
permanent rare earth magnets resulted in successful rapid extrusion.
 No evidence of soft tissue dehiscences, aberrant tooth mobility, or root resorption was
found.

INTRUSION OF POSTERIORS IN OPEN BITE CASES

 Skeletal open bites are caused mainly by over eruption of the upper posterior teeth or
vertical over growth of the posterior dento-alveolar complex.
 The active vertical corrector (AVC) is an adaptation of the present day bite block
therapy introduced in 1986 by Dr. Eugene L. Dellinger.
 It works as an energized bite block.
 It is a simple removable appliance consisting of posterior occlusal bite blocks
containing repelling magnets which intrudes the posterior teeth causing the mandible
to rotate upward and forward.
 It consists of upper and lower bite blocks with Samarium Cobalt magnets in Stainless
Steel cases embedded in them.
 Mechanism of Action : Reciprocal intrusion of maxillary and mandibular teeth
resulting in autorotation of mandible and open bite correction

CLOSURE OF MIDLINE DIASTEMA

 Muller (1984)
 Rectangular SmCo magnets are directly bonded to teeth
Advantages
 No archwires
  Less Chair side time
 Position of teeth can be controlled by position of magnets

MAGNETIC TWIN BLOCK

 SmCo magnets are embedded in the inclined surface of the twin block in attraction
mode.
 In attractive mode they ensured the twin blocks are always in contact even at night
when usually the masticatory slackness causes the twin blocks to go out of contact.
PROPELLANT UNILATERAL MAGNETIC APPLIANCE

1. Treatment of hemifacial microsomia by Chafe (1995)

2. Repelling SmCo magnets in U/L acrylic bite blocks
3. Simulates autogenous costochondral graft
4. In these individuals there is underdevelopment of one half of the facial structures
and muscles on the affected side.
This involved unilateral blocks of acrylic, in separate upper and lower removable
appliances, with 5 X 5 mm cylindrical gold-plated Samarium Cobalt magnets.
The upper component had a screw to mechanically advance the block 0.25mm
sequentially and once fully opened this entailed the fabrication of a new appliance.
upper block was advanced, the lower was propelled antero-medially, as the mandible
pivoted around the normal temporomandibular joint.
Treatment with the PUMA also resulted in improvement of the lower dental midline,
This was probably due to the unilateral magnetic blocks interrupting the vertical
dentoalveolar development and simulating the growth of the graft.

CONCLUSION
 Magnets can be used to give predictable forces in either attraction or repelling mode.
They can be made small enough to suit most dental applications.
 Conceivable risks of harmful biological effects are negligible with magnets
 Magnets exert continuous forces with less friction, compared to other conventional
orthodontic appliances.
  However, superiority of results with magnetic appliances as compared to those of
conventional orthodontic appliances is still in dispute.

REFERENCES
1. Vardimon AD, Graber TM, Drescher D, Bourauel C. Rare earth magnets and
impaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100(6):494–512.
2. Bhat VS, Shenoy KK, Premkumar P. Magnets in dentistry. Arch Med Health Sci.
2013;1(1):173–9.
3. Behrman SJ. The implantation of magnets in the jaw to aid denture retention. J
Prosth Dent. 1960;10(5):807–41.
4. Bondemark L. Long-term effects of orthodontic magnets on human buccal mucosa
- a clinical, histological and immunohistochemical study. Eur J Orthodon.
1998;20(3):211–8.
5. Springate SD, Sandler PJ. Micro-magnetic Retainers: An Attractive Solution to
Fixed Retention. Br J Orthodon. 1991;18(2):139–41
6. Kawata T, Hirota K, Sumitani K, Umehara K, Yano K, Tzeng HJ, et al. A new
orthodontic force system of magnetic brackets. Am J Orthodon Dentofac Orthoped.
1987;92(3):241–8.
7. Woods MG, Nanda RS. Intrusion of posterior teeth with magnets. An experiment
ingrowing baboons. Angle Orthod. 1988;58(2):136–50