Literature DB >> 16168332

A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum.

Patricia P Chiu1, James A McNamara, Lorenzo Franchi.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects on Class II malocclusions of the distal jet with concurrent full fixed appliances and the pendulum appliance both followed by fixed appliances.
METHODS: The 2 samples each consisted of 32 subjects (19 girls and 13 boys) with mean ages at the start of treatment of 12 years 3 months in the distal jet group and 12 years 6 months in the pendulum group. The durations of the distalization phase of treatment were 10 months in the distal jet group and 7 months in the pendulum group, and the durations of the second phase of treatment with fixed appliances were 18 months in the distal jet group and 24 months in the pendulum group. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at 3 observation times: before treatment, after distalization, and after orthodontic treatment.
RESULTS: During molar distalization, the pendulum subjects showed significantly more distal molar movement and significantly less anchorage loss at both the premolars and the maxillary incisors than the distal jet subjects. The distal jet used simultaneously with fixed appliances and the pendulum were equal in their ability to move the molars bodily. Very little change occurred in the inclination of the mandibular plane at the end of the 2-phase treatment (less than 1 degrees ) in both groups. At the end of comprehensive treatment, the maxillary first molars were 0.6 mm mesial to their original positions in the distal jet group and 0.5 mm distal in the pendulum group. Nevertheless, total molar correction was identical in the 2 groups (3.0 mm), and both appliances were equally effective in achieving a Class I molar relationship. Simultaneous edgewise orthodontic treatment during molar distalization in the distal jet group shortened the overall treatment time but produced significant flaring of both maxillary and mandibular incisors at the end of treatment. The impact on the soft tissue profile was minimal with both appliances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16168332     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  20 in total

1.  Soft tissue effects of three different Class II/1-camouflage treatment strategies.

Authors:  Ezgi Atik; Bengisu Akarsu-Guven; Ilken Kocadereli
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Effects of conventional anchorage on premolar root development during treatment with a pendulum appliance.

Authors:  Gero Kinzinger; Cora Pantel; Björn Ludwig; Norbert Gülden; Bettina Glasl; Jörg Lisson
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Long-term stability of miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization in Class II treatment.

Authors:  Till Edward Bechtold; Young-Chel Park; Kyung-Ho Kim; Heekyu Jung; Ju-Young Kang; Yoon Jeong Choi
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Three-dimensional comparison of the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances: A CBCT study.

Authors:  Kyle L Taylor; Karine Evangelista; Luciana Muniz; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; José Valladares-Neto; James McNamara; Lorenzo Franchi; Hera Kim-Berman; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 1.826

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances.

Authors:  Alberto Caprioglio; Mattia Fontana; Elena Longoni; Mauro Cozzani
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Comparison of two implant-supported molar distalization systems.

Authors:  Cagla Sar; Burcak Kaya; Omur Ozsoy; Ayca Arman Özcirpici
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Sagittal, rotational and transverse changes with three intraoral distalization force systems: Jones jig, distal jet and first class.

Authors:  Silvio-Augusto Bellini-Pereira; Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo; Lorena Vilanova; Mayara-Paim Patel; Rachelle-Simões Reis; Roberto-Henrique-da Costa Grec; José-Fernando-Castanha Henriques; Guilherme Janson
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2021-05-01

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.