Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy using pendulum and distal screw appliances.
10.4041/kjod.2015.45.4.171
- Author:
Alberto CAPRIOGLIO
1
;
Alessandra CAFAGNA
;
Mattia FONTANA
;
Mauro COZZANI
Author Information
1. Postgraduate Programme in Orthodontics, School of Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. mattiafontana16@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Class II malocclusion;
Molar distalization;
Non-compliance;
Intraoral distalizing devices;
Skeletal anchorage
- MeSH:
Bicuspid;
Humans;
Incisor;
Male;
Malocclusion;
Molar*;
Retrospective Studies;
Statistics, Nonparametric
- From:The Korean Journal of Orthodontics
2015;45(4):171-179
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare dentoalveolar and skeletal changes produced by the pendulum appliance (PA) and the distal screw appliance (DS) in Class II patients. METHODS: Forty-three patients (19 men, 24 women) with Class II malocclusion were retrospectively selected for the study. Twenty-four patients (mean age, 12.2 +/- 1.5 years) were treated with the PA, and 19 patients (mean age, 11.3 +/- 1.9 years) were treated with the DS. The mean distalization time was 7 months for the PA group and 9 months for the DS group. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at T1, before treatment, and at T2, the end of distalization. A Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparisons of the two groups between T1 and T2. RESULTS: PA and DS were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (4.7 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molars showed less distal tipping in the DS group than in the PA group (3.2degrees vs. 9.0degrees, respectively). Moreover, significant premolar anchorage loss (2.7 mm) and incisor proclination (5.0degrees) were noted in the PA group, whereas premolar distal movement (1.9 mm) and no significant changes at the incisor (0.1degrees) were observed in the DS group. No significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes were detected between the two groups during the distalization phase. CONCLUSIONS: PA and DS seem to be equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars; however, greater distal molar tipping and premolar anchorage loss can be expected using PA.
