Literature DB >> 19054813

Comparison of the effects produced by headgear and pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.

Fernanda Angelieri1, Renato Rodrigues de Almeida, Guilherme Janson, José Fernando Castanha Henriques, Arnaldo Pinzan.   

Abstract

This study compared the effects produced by two different molar distalizers, namely cervical headgear (CHG) and the intraoral pendulum appliance, associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. The headgear group comprised 30 patients (19 females, 11 males), with an initial age of 13.07 years [standard deviation (SD) = 1.3], treated with CHG and fixed orthodontic appliances for a mean period of 3.28 years, and the pendulum group 22 patients (15 females, 7 males), with initial age of 13.75 years (SD = 1.86), treated with the pendulum appliance followed by fixed orthodontic appliances for a mean period of 4.12 years. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the start (T1) and on completion (T2) of orthodontic treatment. The pendulum and CHG groups were similar as to initial age, severity of the Class II malocclusion, gender distribution, initial cephalometric characteristics, and initial and final treatment priority index (TPI). Only treatment time was not similar between the groups, with a need for annualization for data for the pendulum group. The data were compared with independent t-tests. There was significantly greater restriction of maxillary forward growth and improvement of the skeletal maxillomandibular relationship in the CHG group (P < 0.05). The maxillary molars were more mesially tipped and extruded and the mandibular molars more uprighted in the CHG group compared with the pendulum group (P < 0.05). There was more labial tipping of the mandibular incisors and greater overbite reduction in the pendulum group. The pendulum appliance produced only dentoalveolar effects, different from the CHG appliance, which restricted maxillary forward displacement, thus improving the skeletal maxillomandibular relationship.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19054813     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  10 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Tomographic evaluation of dentoskeletal changes due to the treatment of class II malocclusion with Forsus appliance.

Authors:  Antonio Carlos Sakuno; Ana Paula Barbisan da Rosa; Fernando Akio Maeda; Tarcila Trivino; Paulo Eduardo Guedes Carvalho; Fernando César Torres
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-06-05

3.  Staging Orthodontic Aligners for Complex Orthodontic Tooth Movement.

Authors:  Shivam Mehta; Dolly Patel; Sumit Yadav
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2021-09

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  Comparison of dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with Jones Jig appliance and with maxillary first premolar extractions.

Authors:  Daniela Cubas Pupulim; José Fernando Castanha Henriques; Guilherme Janson; Fernanda Pinelli Henriques; Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas; Daniela Garib
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2019-05-20

7.  Impact of molar teeth distalization with clear aligners on occlusal vertical dimension: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Silvia Caruso; Alessandro Nota; Shideh Ehsani; Elena Maddalone; Kenji Ojima; Simona Tecco
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 2.757

8.  Effects of pendulum appliance versus clear aligners in the vertical dimension during Class II malocclusion treatment: a randomized prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Roberta Lione; Alessia Balboni; Valentina Di Fazio; Chiara Pavoni; Paola Cozza
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 3.747

9.  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

10.  A three-dimensional finite element analysis of molar distalization with a palatal plate, pendulum, and headgear according to molar eruption stage.

Authors:  Ju-Man Kang; Jae Hyun Park; Mohamed Bayome; Moonbee Oh; Chong Ook Park; Yoon-Ah Kook; Sung-Seo Mo
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 1.372

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.