IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research 2020;6(4):229–235 Content available at: https://www.ipinnovative.com/open-access-journals IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research Journal homepage: www.ipinnovative.com Review Article Molar protaction –A review Nikhil Asok 1, *, Stuti Raj 1 , Sonal 1 , Ragni Tandon 1 , Shally Mahajan 1 , Zeyaullah Khan 1 1 Dept. of Orthodontics, Saraswati Dental College, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 24-09-2020 Accepted 05-11-2020 Available online 18-11-2020 Keywords: Molar protraction Biomechanics of molar protraction ABSTRACT Objectives: To provide a assortment of the various methods as of how the dogma of molar protraction is achieved. Materials and Methods: Orthodontically relevant sources of information were searched using electronic databases including PubMed and Google Scholar and current reports. Results: Due to the rapidly evolving new techniques in Orthodontics various methods have been explored and much is left to be disclosed. Conclusion: Keeping in mind the various methods through which one can approach Molar protraction, one should always check on the ease of the procedure avoiding dexterity for the clinician and also patient compliance must be seen. Over all the efficiency lies in the hand of the clinician more than the technique itself. © This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 1. Introduction Conventional anchorage provides very limited options for anterior anchorage reinforcement during molar protraction, especially in the mandibular arch. It typically involves using the anterior teeth as the anchorage unit, but this is limited by these teeth’s relatively low combined root surface areas. 1 Protraction of molars is easier in the maxilla than in the mandible owing to the relative abundance of trabecular bone in the former. The large amount of cortical bone and the surrounding powerful musculature in the posterior mandible adversely affect anteroposterior molar movement, which becomes even more difficult with time as the alveolar bone narrows. 2 In lieu of surgical alveolar ridge augmentation, substantial reductions in alveolar height and width may severely limit mesial movement of the posterior teeth, especially in hypodontia cases (where the alveolus is hypoplastic) or long-standing edentulous sites (where it has atrophied). 1 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: nikhilasok@gmail.com (N. Asok). Molar protraction is also more difficult in adults than in children. Children and young adults have fewer periodontal and root resorption problems during space closure than do older adults. 2 This review article provides a brief idea on the assortment of treatment approaches for molar protraction. 1.1. Indications 1. Class I, II and III malocclusions with generalized spacing where overjet is minimal. 2. Class II molar relationship where mandibular is to be protracted. 3. Cases of Class I malocclusion Type 1 where first premolars extraction was done and after complete retraction, the extraction space is left in the maxillary arch 4. Cases of end on/full class II molar relation due to mandibular retrognathism where second premolars extraction were done to correct the molar relation. 5. Cases of class III molar relation, where the molar correction is to be done and also to correct the reverse overjet. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijodr.2020.045 2581-9356/© 2020 Innovative Publication, All rights reserved. 229