OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to cephalometrically compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion with Pendulum and Jones jig appliances, followed by fixed corrective orthodontics, and to compare such effects to a control group. METHODS: The sample was divided into three groups. Group 1: 18 patients treated with Pendulum, Group 2: 25 patients treated with Jones jig, and Group 3: 19 young subjects with untreated Class II malocclusions and initial mean age of 12.88 years. The chi-square test was applied to assess severity and gender distribution. Groups 1 and 2 were compared to the control group by means of the one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests in order to differentiate treatment changes from those occurred by craniofacial growth. RESULTS: There were no significant changes among the three groups with regard to the components of the maxilla and the mandible, maxillomandibular relationship, cephalometric and tegumental pattern. Buccal tipping of mandibular incisors was significantly greater in the experimental groups and increased mesial angulation of the maxillary second molars was found in the Jones jig group. In the experimental groups, dental relationship, overbite and overjet were corrected. CONCLUSIONS: It can be stated that the distalization achieved its purpose of correcting the Class II.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to cephalometrically compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion with Pendulum and Jones jig appliances, followed by fixed corrective orthodontics, and to compare such effects to a control group. METHODS: The sample was divided into three groups. Group 1: 18 patients treated with Pendulum, Group 2: 25 patients treated with Jones jig, and Group 3: 19 young subjects with untreated Class II malocclusions and initial mean age of 12.88 years. The chi-square test was applied to assess severity and gender distribution. Groups 1 and 2 were compared to the control group by means of the one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests in order to differentiate treatment changes from those occurred by craniofacial growth. RESULTS: There were no significant changes among the three groups with regard to the components of the maxilla and the mandible, maxillomandibular relationship, cephalometric and tegumental pattern. Buccal tipping of mandibular incisors was significantly greater in the experimental groups and increased mesial angulation of the maxillary second molars was found in the Jones jig group. In the experimental groups, dental relationship, overbite and overjet were corrected. CONCLUSIONS: It can be stated that the distalization achieved its purpose of correcting the Class II.
Entities:
Keywords:
Angle Class II malocclusion; Corrective orthodontics; Molar tooth