Literature DB >> 16279817

Extraoral vs intraoral appliance for distal movement of maxillary first molars: a randomized controlled trial.

Lars Bondemark1, Ingela Karlsson.   

Abstract

Using randomized controlled trial methodology, the aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the treatment effects of an extraoral appliance (EOA) and an intraoral appliance (IOA) for distal movement of maxillary first molars. A total of 40 patients (mean 11.5 years, SD 1.29) at the Orthodontic Clinic, National Health Service, Skane County Council, Malmö, Sweden, were randomized to receive treatment with either extraoral traction (cervical headgear) or an IOA using superelastic coils for distal movement of maxillary first molars. The inclusion criteria were a nonextraction treatment plan, a Class II molar relationship and maxillary first molars in occlusion with no erupted maxillary second molars. The outcome measures to be assessed in the trial were treatment time, cephalometric analysis of distal molar movement, anterior movement of maxillary central incisors, ie, anchorage loss and sagittal and vertical skeletal positional changes of the maxilla and mandible. In the IOA group, the molars were distalized during an average time of 5.2 months, whereas in the EOA group the corresponding time was 6.4 months (P < .01). The mean amount of distal molar movement was significantly higher in the IOA than in the EOA group, three mm vs 1.7 mm (P < .001). Moderate anchorage loss was produced with the IOA implying increased overjet (0.9 mm) whereas the EOA created decreased overjet (0.9 mm). It can be concluded that the IOA was more effective than the EOA to create distal movement of the maxillary first molars.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16279817     DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[699:EVIAFD]2.0.CO;2

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


  6 in total

Review 1.  Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods.

Authors:  Safa Jambi; Tanya Walsh; Jonathan Sandler; Philip E Benson; Richard M Skeggs; Kevin D O'Brien
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-08-19

Review 2.  Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children.

Authors:  Sarah Turner; Jayne E Harrison; Fyeza Nj Sharif; Darren Owens; Declan T Millett
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-31

3.  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

4.  Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy with erupted second molar: Segmented versus Quad Pendulum appliance.

Authors:  Alberto Caprioglio; Mauro Cozzani; Mattia Fontana
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  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

6.  Biomechanical analysis of distalization of mandibular molars by placing a mini-plate: A finite element study.

Authors:  Myungsoon Park; Yonghyun Na; Minbong Park; Janghoon Ahn
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 1.372

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.