Background: A common strategy to correct Class II malocclusions using a nonextraction protocol in children is to move the maxillary molars distally using molar distalization appliances, which usually derive their anchorage from maxillary premolars, causing mesialization of premolars and protrusion of incisors.
Objectives: To evaluate the skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes produced by three different distalizing appliances, namely, pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet appliances.
Materials And Methods: Sixty-six children of mean age 14.13 years requiring molar distalization were divided into three groups: Group I (pendulum appliance), Group II (K-loop), and Group III (distal jet). Lateral cephalometric films were taken before and after 5 months of molar distalization and following cephalometric parameters were used to assess the effects of maxillary molar distalization, namely, anteroposterior skeletal (SNA/SNB/ANB), vertical skeletal (face height ratio/Frankfort-mandibular plane [FMA]/angle formed between Maxillary plane & Mandibular plane (MM)), interdental (overjet/overbite), maxillary dentoalveolar, and soft tissue parameters.
Results: There was no significant age difference between the three groups. In overall treatment changes among the three groups, the Anteroposterior skeletal changes were not statistically significant, vertically FMA angle increased by 1.79° ± 2.25° and overbite reduced by 2.38 ± 1.83 mm. The maxillary first molars were distalized by an average of 4.70 ± 3.01 mm (Upper 6 [U6] to pterygoid vertical [PTV]). The maxillary central incisor labial tipping increased to an average of 1.61 ± 2.73 mm and cant of upper lip increased by 3.40° ± 5.88° are statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: All three distalization techniques in growing children produced significant effects on anchor unit. There was an increase in FMA angle, significant bite opening, proclination of the maxillary incisors and increase in the cant of the upper lip.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.191411 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
A novel appliance for Class II dentoalveolar correction.
J Orthod
January 2025
Private Practice, Jerusalem, Israel.
In recent years, a segmental approach to Class II correction has gained popularity among orthodontists. This concept is best represented by the Carrière Motion 3D™ Class II Appliance (CMA), which is an efficient and effective appliance for the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Although it is original and innovative, it also has some inherent flaws that can potentially interfere with its daily use.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjectives: To evaluate the treatment effects of the modified miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE) and rapid palatal expander (RPE) with distalizers in patients with Class II malocclusion and maxillary crowding.
Materials And Methods: The sample comprised 28 skeletal Class I adolescents with dental Class II malocclusion and maxillary crowding of >4 mm who received nonextraction treatment. Fourteen patients were treated with a modified MARPE with distalizer (MMD), while another 14 patients were treated with a modified RPE with distalizer (MRD).
Dentoskeletal effects of molar distalization with miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
January 2025
Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal changes promoted by the miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.
Methods: This retrospective study involved 52 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into 2 groups according to the treatment received: the miniscrew group (MG) with 23 patients (14 females and 9 males; mean initial age of 12.42 years) treated using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever, and the pendulum group (PG) with 29 patients (21 females and 8 males; mean initial age of 13.
Second Versus First Molar Extractions in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treatment: A Retrospective Longitudinal Outcome Study into Maxillary Canine, Premolar, and Molar Movement.
J Clin Med
January 2025
Radboudumc 3D Lab, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
This retrospective longitudinal outcome study comparing orthodontic extraction modalities, including extraction of maxillary first or second molars, aimed to compare the three-dimensional tooth movement of maxillary canines (C), premolars (P1, P2), and molars (M1, M2) in Class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with fixed appliances. A sample of 98 patients (mean age 13.20 ± 1.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIs ADDM graft practical? A comparative study to evaluate ADDM graft in third molar surgery.
Oral Maxillofac Surg
January 2025
Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Morādābād, India.
Background: It has been outlined that LTM (Lower third molar) extracted from patients in which grinding, cleaning, sterilization & demineralization prove to be highly effective as graft material for filling the alveolar socket of the very same patient. These investigations aim to assess the efficiency of ADDM (Autogenous Demineralized Dentin Matrix) graft in third molar extraction sockets.
Purpose: To check the effectiveness of ADDM as graft material in extraction socket by evaluating pain, swelling, trismus, PD (Probing Depth) and bone density.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!