Limits...
Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy using pendulum and distal screw appliances.

Caprioglio A, Cafagna A, Fontana M, Cozzani M - Korean J Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: PA and DS were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (4.7 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molars showed less distal tipping in the DS group than in the PA group (3.2° vs. 9.0°, respectively).No significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes were detected between the two groups during the distalization phase.PA and DS seem to be equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars; however, greater distal molar tipping and premolar anchorage loss can be expected using PA.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Postgraduate Programme in Orthodontics, School of Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare dentoalveolar and skeletal changes produced by the pendulum appliance (PA) and the distal screw appliance (DS) in Class II patients.

Methods: Forty-three patients (19 men, 24 women) with Class II malocclusion were retrospectively selected for the study. Twenty-four patients (mean age, 12.2 ± 1.5 years) were treated with the PA, and 19 patients (mean age, 11.3 ± 1.9 years) were treated with the DS. The mean distalization time was 7 months for the PA group and 9 months for the DS group. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at T1, before treatment, and at T2, the end of distalization. A Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparisons of the two groups between T1 and T2.

Results: PA and DS were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (4.7 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molars showed less distal tipping in the DS group than in the PA group (3.2° vs. 9.0°, respectively). Moreover, significant premolar anchorage loss (2.7 mm) and incisor proclination (5.0°) were noted in the PA group, whereas premolar distal movement (1.9 mm) and no significant changes at the incisor (0.1°) were observed in the DS group. No significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes were detected between the two groups during the distalization phase.

Conclusions: PA and DS seem to be equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars; however, greater distal molar tipping and premolar anchorage loss can be expected using PA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Graphic representation of maxillary superimposition for the pendulum group, showing dentoalveolar changes during the distalization phase (T1-T2).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4524956&req=5

Figure 4: Graphic representation of maxillary superimposition for the pendulum group, showing dentoalveolar changes during the distalization phase (T1-T2).

Mentions: The mean, standard deviation, and statistical significance of the dentoskeletal changes relative to T1-T2 are summarized in Table 4. Graphic representations of maxillary superimposition for the PA and DS groups describing dentoalveolar changes during the distalization phase (T1-T2) are shown in Figures 4 and 5.


Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy using pendulum and distal screw appliances.

Caprioglio A, Cafagna A, Fontana M, Cozzani M - Korean J Orthod (2015)

Graphic representation of maxillary superimposition for the pendulum group, showing dentoalveolar changes during the distalization phase (T1-T2).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4524956&req=5

Figure 4: Graphic representation of maxillary superimposition for the pendulum group, showing dentoalveolar changes during the distalization phase (T1-T2).
Mentions: The mean, standard deviation, and statistical significance of the dentoskeletal changes relative to T1-T2 are summarized in Table 4. Graphic representations of maxillary superimposition for the PA and DS groups describing dentoalveolar changes during the distalization phase (T1-T2) are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Bottom Line: PA and DS were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (4.7 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molars showed less distal tipping in the DS group than in the PA group (3.2° vs. 9.0°, respectively).No significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes were detected between the two groups during the distalization phase.PA and DS seem to be equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars; however, greater distal molar tipping and premolar anchorage loss can be expected using PA.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Postgraduate Programme in Orthodontics, School of Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare dentoalveolar and skeletal changes produced by the pendulum appliance (PA) and the distal screw appliance (DS) in Class II patients.

Methods: Forty-three patients (19 men, 24 women) with Class II malocclusion were retrospectively selected for the study. Twenty-four patients (mean age, 12.2 ± 1.5 years) were treated with the PA, and 19 patients (mean age, 11.3 ± 1.9 years) were treated with the DS. The mean distalization time was 7 months for the PA group and 9 months for the DS group. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at T1, before treatment, and at T2, the end of distalization. A Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparisons of the two groups between T1 and T2.

Results: PA and DS were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (4.7 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molars showed less distal tipping in the DS group than in the PA group (3.2° vs. 9.0°, respectively). Moreover, significant premolar anchorage loss (2.7 mm) and incisor proclination (5.0°) were noted in the PA group, whereas premolar distal movement (1.9 mm) and no significant changes at the incisor (0.1°) were observed in the DS group. No significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes were detected between the two groups during the distalization phase.

Conclusions: PA and DS seem to be equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars; however, greater distal molar tipping and premolar anchorage loss can be expected using PA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus