Search

The article informs about a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of distalizing maxillary first molars using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) based on their location, number, and appliance design. Topic include the results indicate that TAD-supported maxillary molar distalization can be effective and stable, especially with rigid palatal appliances, but further research is recommended for more clinical evidence.

Objective: To compare two distalizing devices supported by palatal miniscrews, the MGBM System (MGBM) and the Distal Screw appliance (DS), in dental Class II patients. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment (T1) and postdistalization (T2) lateral cephalograms of 53 Class II malocclusion subjects were examined. MGBM consisted of 29 patients (16 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 12.3 ± 1.5 years; DS consisted of 24 patients (11 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 11.3 ± 1.2 years. The mean distalization time was 6 ± 2 months for MGBM and 9 ± 2 months for DS. Initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a Student's t-test. Results: Maxillary superimpositions showed that the maxillary first molar distalized an average of 5.5 mm in the MGBM and 3.2 mm in the DS between T1 and T2; distal molar tipping was greater in the MGBM (10.3°) than in the DS (3.0°). First premolar showed a mean mesial movement of 1.4 mm, with a mesial tipping of 4.4° in the MGBM; on the contrary, first premolar showed a distal movement of 2.2 mm, with a distal tipping of 6.2°, in the DS. Conclusions: The MGBM system resulted in greater distal molar movement and less treatment time, resulting in more efficient movement than was associated with the DS; DS showed less molar tipping during distalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare dentoalveolar and skeletal changes produced by the pendulum appliance (PA) and the distal screw appliance (DS) in Class 11 patients. Methods: Forty-three patients (19 men, 24 women) with Class 11 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 (3.2° vs. 9.0°, respectively). Moreover, significant premolar anchorage loss (2.7 mm) and incisor proclination (5.0°) were noted in the PA group, whereas premolar distal movement (1.9 mm) and no significant changes at the incisor (0.1°) 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the molar movements and skeletal changes associated with Pendulum-fixed appliance treatment and the long-term postretention period. Subjects and Methods: The treatment sample consisted of 76 Class II patients, 35 males and 41 females. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at the start of treatment (T1); the end of distalization (T2); the end of orthodontic fixed appliance therapy (T3); and long-term observation (7 years 2 months later; T4). Mean age was 12 years 11 months at T1, 13 years 8 months at T2, 15 years 4 months at T3, and 22 years 5 months at T4. The average amount of Class II molar relationship was 3.1 mm, with a mean overjet of 5.9 mm at the beginning of treatment. A paired f-test was used to identify significant between-group differences between T2-T4 and T3-T4. Results: Distal molar movement was obtained during the distalization phase (T2), and more than half of the distalizing effect was maintained at the end of maxillary growth (T4). Most of the relapse occurred during fixed appliance therapy (T3), whereas no significant change was detected in the postretention period (T4). The molar relationship did not show any significant difference between T2 and T4. The vertical facial dimension increased during the distalization phase (T2) and fixed appliance therapy (T3) but returned to the initial values during the postretention period (T4). Conclusions: The Pendulum appliance induces significant dentoalveolar effects, which can be partially maintained during the long-term period. The Class I molar relationship does not change during completion of individual growth. Increase in vertical facial dimension represents a temporary effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Mondo Ortodontico is the property of Masson SPA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)