Literature DB >> 12401059

Evaluation of maxillary molar distalization with the distal jet: a comparison with other contemporary methods.

Eugenio Bolla1, Filippo Muratore, Aldo Carano, S Jay Bowman.   

Abstract

Maxillary molar distalization is an increasingly popular option for the resolution of Class II malocclusions. This communication describes the effects of one particular molar distalizing appliance, the distal jet, in a sample of 20 consecutively treated and growing subjects (11 females, nine males; mean starting age of 13) and compares these effects with those of similar devices. Pre- and postdistalization cephalometric radiographs and dental models were analyzed to determine the dental and skeletal effects. The distal jet appliances were constructed using a biomechanical couple to direct the distalizing force to the level of the maxillary first molar's center of resistance. The distal jet was the only appliance used during the distalization phase of treatment. Examination of the cephalometric tracings demonstrated that the crowns of the maxillary first molars were distalized an average of 3.2 mm into a Class I molar relationship. In the process, the first molars were tipped distally an average of 3.1 degrees, however, the amount of tipping in each case was influenced by the state of eruption of the second molar. In subjects whose second molars had erupted only to the level of the apical third of the first molar roots, distal tipping was almost twice that seen when the second molar had completed their eruption. Anchorage loss measured at the first premolars averaged 1.3 mm, but the crowns tipped 3.1 degrees distally because of the design of the appliance. The maxillary incisors were proclined an average of 0.6 degrees with minimal effect on the mandibular plane angle and lower facial height. This study suggests that the distal jet appliance effectively moves the maxillary molars distally into a Class I molar relationship with minimal distal tipping, however, some loss of anchorage is to be expected during this process. The distal jet appliance compares favorably with other intraoral distalization devices and with mechanics featuring mandibular protraction for the resolution of patients with Class II, despite the fact that these types of mechanics address different jaws.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12401059     DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0481:EOMMDW>2.0.CO;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  24 in total

1.  Treatment efficiency of mini-implant-borne distalization depending on age and second-molar eruption.

Authors:  M Nienkemper; B Wilmes; A Pauls; S Yamaguchi; B Ludwig; D Drescher
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-03-02       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Cephalometric effects of the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment.

Authors:  Mayara Paim Patel; José Fernando Castanha Henriques; Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas; Roberto Henrique da Costa Grec
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2014 May-Jun

3.  Effects of maxillary molar distalization with Zygoma-Gear Appliance.

Authors:  Metin Nur; Mehmet Bayram; Mevlut Celikoglu; Dogan Kilkis; Ali Alper Pampu
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Fabrication and evaluation of a noncompliant molar distalizing appliance: bonded molar distalizer.

Authors:  A Sodagar; M S Ahmad Akhoundi; A Rafighii; S Arab
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2011-09-30

Review 5.  Effects of cervical headgear appliance: a systematic review.

Authors:  Fernanda Pinelli Henriques; Guilherme Janson; Jose Fernando Castanha Henriques; Daniela Cubas Pupulim
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug

6.  Non-extraction treatment of severe crowding with pendulum appliance.

Authors:  Chandrasekhar Gandikota; Yudhister Palla Venkata; Padmalatha Challa; Shubhaker Rao Juvvadi
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2013-07

7.  Combined treatment with headgear and the Frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ahmad Sharafeddin Burhan
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 1.372

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

Authors:  Alberto Caprioglio; Alessandra Cafagna; Mattia Fontana; Mauro Cozzani
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 1.372

9.  Comparison of maxillary molar distalization with an implant-supported distal jet and a traditional tooth-supported distal jet appliance.

Authors:  Mauro Cozzani; Marco Pasini; Francesco Zallio; Robert Ritucci; Sabrina Mutinelli; Laura Mazzotta; Maria Rita Giuca; Vincenzo Piras
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2014-06-11

10.  Maxillary molar distalization with aligners in adult patients: a multicenter retrospective study.

Authors:  Serena Ravera; Tommaso Castroflorio; Francesco Garino; Sam Daher; Giovanni Cugliari; Andrea Deregibus
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 2.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.