Noor Laith Sa'aed1, Chong Ook Park2, Mohamed Bayome3, Jae Hyun Park4, YoonJi Kim5, Yoon-Ah Kook6. 1. a Graduate student, Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 2. b Private practice, Clinical Professor at Department of Orthodontics, The Catholic University of Korea; Seoul National University; and Korea University, Seoul, Korea. 3. c Research Assistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea, and Visiting Professor, Department of Postgraduate Studies, Universidad Autonóma del Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay. 4. d Associate Professor and Chair, Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, AT Still University, Mesa, Ariz, and Adjunct Professor, the Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 5. e Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. 6. f Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare skeletal effects and the amount of molar distalization in maxilla using modified palatal anchorage plate (MPAP) vs headgear appliances in adolescent patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 45 Class II malocclusion patients were analyzed; 24 were treated with MPAP appliances (age, 12.4 years) and 21 with headgear (age, 12.1 years). Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. Thirty-two variables were measured and compared between both groups using multivariate analysis of covariates. RESULTS: There was no significant main effect of the appliance type on the treatment results (P = .063). Also, there was no significant main effect of the appliance type on both pre- and posttreatment comparisons (P = .0198 and .135, respectively). The MPAP and headgear groups showed significant distalization of maxillary first molars (3.06 ± 0.54 mm and 1.8 ± 0.58 mm, respectively; P < .001). Sagittal skeletal maxillomandibular differences were improved after treatment (P < .001), with no significant differences between the two groups. No significant difference in treatment duration was found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The MPAP showed a significant skeletal effect on the maxilla. Both MPAP and headgear resulted in distalization of maxillary first molars. Therefore, it is recommended that clinicians consider the application of MPAP, especially in noncompliant Class II patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare skeletal effects and the amount of molar distalization in maxilla using modified palatal anchorage plate (MPAP) vs headgear appliances in adolescent patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 45 Class II malocclusionpatients were analyzed; 24 were treated with MPAP appliances (age, 12.4 years) and 21 with headgear (age, 12.1 years). Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. Thirty-two variables were measured and compared between both groups using multivariate analysis of covariates. RESULTS: There was no significant main effect of the appliance type on the treatment results (P = .063). Also, there was no significant main effect of the appliance type on both pre- and posttreatment comparisons (P = .0198 and .135, respectively). The MPAP and headgear groups showed significant distalization of maxillary first molars (3.06 ± 0.54 mm and 1.8 ± 0.58 mm, respectively; P < .001). Sagittal skeletal maxillomandibular differences were improved after treatment (P < .001), with no significant differences between the two groups. No significant difference in treatment duration was found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The MPAP showed a significant skeletal effect on the maxilla. Both MPAP and headgear resulted in distalization of maxillary first molars. Therefore, it is recommended that clinicians consider the application of MPAP, especially in noncompliant Class II patients.