Transverse stability of Class II malocclusion correction with the pendulum appliance

Introduction: Problem solving in Class II malocclusion treatment performed with premolars extractions or distalizing techniques in relation to the profile modification. Aim: To cephalometrically compare soft tissue changes produced either by maxillary premolar extraction, tooth-borne Pendulum appliance or bone-borne MGBM appliance. Materials and Methods: Both pre- (T1) and post-treatment (T2) lateral cephalograms of 89 skeletal Class II patients (36 M, 53 F), treated during pubertal growth spurt, were retrospectively selected. Three groups were formed based on the therapy performed: 30 patients had been treated with maxillary first premolars extraction (U4), 31 patients with a conventional tooth-borne distalizing with Pendulum appliance (PA), and 28 patients with a skeletally anchored distalizing appliance (MGBM). Soft tissue was analyzed comparing upper (UL) and lower (LL) lip’s points with regard to True Vertical Line (TVL) and Esthetic plane (E-plane). Skeletal and dental values have been recorded in order to cephalometrically compare ΔT2-T1 changes among groups and to correlate dental and skeletal changes to profile modifications. One-way ANOVA was employed to compare groups at T1. Paired sample t-tests were employed to assess significant intra- and intergroup differences between T2 and T1. Significance level was set at 0.05 Results: UL and LL showed a slight but not significant retrusion relative to TVL in all three groups. UL and LL distances to E-plane were not statistically significant among U4, PA, and MGBM groups. Independently of the treatment, UL was tangent to TVL in all groups. No statistically significant differences have been shown in skeletal records. Significant differences were recorded in Overjet among U4 than PA and MGBM groups. Conclusions: Class II malocclusion treatment with maxillary first premolar extraction, conventional or skeletal distalization did not significantly affect the profile producing similar changes in the soft tissue.

Download Full-text

Class II malocclusion and ectopic canine treated with Pendulum appliance and TADs in a high-relapse potential Ehlers-Danlos patient: A case report

Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists ◽

10.1016/j.ejwf.2020.01.003 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 25-31

Author(s):

Dina Stappert ◽

Abrar Bakhsh ◽

Lauren Wiese

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Class Ii ◽

Class Ii Malocclusion ◽

Pendulum Appliance

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Pendulum appliance and the Jones Jig: A prospective comparative study

European Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.4103/ejd.ejd_295_16 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 11 (03) ◽

pp. 323-329 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Sushruth Shetty ◽

Rajkumar Maurya ◽

H. V. Pruthvi Raj ◽

Anand Patil

Keyword(s):

Class Ii ◽

Class Ii Malocclusion ◽

Test Results ◽

Molar Distalization ◽

Facial Height ◽

Lateral Cephalograms ◽

Prospective Comparative Study ◽

Treatment Changes ◽

Pendulum Appliance ◽

Paired T Test

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare two molar distalization devices, the Pendulum appliance (PA) and the Jones Jig (JJ) in dental Class II patients. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment and postdistalization lateral cephalograms and study models of 20 subjects (6 males, 14 females) Class II malocclusion subjects were examined. PA and JJ group both consisted of 10 patients each with a mean pretreatment age of 12 years 1 month for females and 12 years 5 months for males. The PA and the JJ appliance were activated once in a month until Class II molar relationship was corrected to a super Class I molar relationship in both groups. Initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of Paired t-test. Results: Maxillary first molar distalized an average of 3.85 mm in the PA and 2.75 mm in the JJ between T1 and T2; rate of molar distalization was 1.59 mm/month for PA, and the JJ appliance averaged 0.88 mm/month, distal molar tipping was greater in PA (6.2°) than in the JJ (3.9°). Average mesial movement of the premolars was 2.2 mm with PA and JJ both. JJ showed a greater rotation of first molars after distalization as compared to PA. The increase in vertical facial height was also greater for JJ as compared to PA. Conclusions: Both the appliances were effective in molar distalization with PA requiring less distalization time (16 days less than JJ). Some adverse effects were noted with both which one should strive to control.

Download Full-text