Pendulum and modified pendulum appliances for maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion – a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 394-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousef Al-Thomali ◽  
Sakeenabi Basha ◽  
Roshan Noor Mohamed
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Maxillary Molar

scholarly journals Dentoskeletal Class II Malocclusion: Maxillary Molar Distalization with No-Compliance Fixed Orthodontic Equipment

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Quinzi ◽  
Enrico Marchetti ◽  
Luigi Guerriero ◽  
Floriana Bosco ◽  
Giuseppe Marzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Maxillary Molar ◽  
Orthodontic Devices

Dentoskeletal class II malocclusion due to a protruded upper dental arch is a major reason for an orthodontic treatment. In these cases, the correction of class II can be hindered by molar distalization, obtained with ‘no-compliance therapy’ that involves the use of appliances which minimize the need for such co-operation and attempt to maximize the predictability of results. The aim of this review was to outline the effectiveness of no-compliance fixed orthodontic devices in the molar distalization. After selection according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 16 articles from 2000 to 2019 were qualified for the final analysis. The literature shows various no-compliance fixed devices whose effect is to distalize the maxillary molars. The present revision allows to conclude that there is a need to increase the number of studies, especially with regard to the most recently introduced devices in the literature. The analysed studies allow to hypothesize that these appliances act with a minimal variability of molar distalization and disto-inclination among them, although different effects among the appliances can be observed as regards to the anchorage.

scholarly journals Maxillary molar distalization with MGBM-system in class II malocclusion

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Caprioglio ◽  
Giuliano Maino ◽  
Giovanna Maino ◽  
Lisa Mariani ◽  
Ida Bozzo
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Maxillary Molar

scholarly journals Maxillary Molar Distalization with Noncompliance Intramaxillary Appliances in Class II Malocclusion

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1133-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Stylianos Antonarakis ◽  
Stavros Kiliaridis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Vertical Movements ◽  
Maxillary Molar

Abstract Objective: To use published data to evaluate quantitatively the dental effects of noncompliance intramaxillary appliances in individuals with Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: A literature search was carried out identifing 13 prospective or retrospective clinical studies matching inclusion criteria. Only appliances with conventional anchorage designs were considered for the review. The data provided in these publications were grouped and analyzed in terms of molar distalization, tipping and vertical movements, and incisor and premolar mesialization, tipping, and vertical movements. Results: Maxillary first molars showed distal crown movement and tipping greater than the mesial crown movement and tipping shown by incisors and premolars. Vertical movements of incisors and premolars were in general extrusive, but molars were intrusive or extrusive, depending on the study and the type of appliance used. Appliances that acted palatally seemed to display a smaller distal tipping movement, as well as smaller incisor and premolar mesial tipping movements, when compared with those that acted buccally. Friction-free appliances, namely the pendulum, produced a large amount of mesiodistal movement and tipping, if no therapeutic uprighting activation was applied. Conclusions: Noncompliance intramaxillary molar distalization appliances all act by distalizing molars with a concomitant and unavoidable loss of anchorage, as revealed by incisor and premolar mesial movement. Buccal acting and palatal acting appliances demonstrate almost similar results, with palatal acting appliances showing less tipping. Friction-free palatal acting appliances appear to produce better molar distalizing effects, but with a concomitant notable loss of anchorage.

scholarly journals Distal Driving of Molar by Smart Distal-propeller Appliance

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 51-53
Author(s):  
U. H. Vijayashree ◽  
Siddharth Shashidhar Revankar ◽  
Preema Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Popular Method ◽  
Maxillary Molar

In recent years, maxillary molar distalization with noncompliance mechanics has been an increasingly popular method for the resolution of Class II malocclusion. This communication describes one particular molar distalizing appliance, the Smart distal-propeller appliance which is simple, inexpensive, easily fabricated that can be used for unilateral or bilateral molar distalization.

Time of maxillary molar distalization with non-compliance intraoral distalizing appliances: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 652-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira ◽  
Daniela Cubas Pupulim ◽  
Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo ◽  
José Fernando Castanha Henriques ◽  
Guilherme Janson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Prospective Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Maxillary Molar ◽  
The Mean

Summary Background/Objective To assess the mean maxillary molar distalization time with non-compliance intraoral distalizing appliances. Search methods and selection criteria Database search included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and a partial grey literature through Google Scholar and OpenGrey. The search was performed until May 2017 and updated on February 2019, without limitations regarding publication year or language. Controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized prospective studies) reporting duration of maxillary molar distalization of Class II patients treated with intraoral distalizers were included. Data collection and analysis For the trials’ quality assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Cochrane Collaboration’s ROBINS-I tool were used for the randomized controlled trials and non-randomized prospective studies, respectively. Database research, risk of bias (RoB) assessment, and extraction of data were performed by two independent investigators, with inclusion of a third reviewer, if disagreements emerged. Data was combined through a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses regarding side of force application, type of anchorage, amount of molar distalization, and sensitivity analysis comparing study designs were also performed. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE and SORT approaches. Results Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; however, a meta-analysis was performed with only four studies, due to the presence of high RoB in the other studies. The random-effects meta-analysis assumes that the mean distalization time with distalizers is 8.34 months (95% confidence interval: 6.10, 10.58). Another meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between distalization time and the type of anchorage (conventional or skeletal), resulting in no significant difference. Both meta-analyses presented low-quality evidence. Limitations The major limitation of this meta-analysis is the fact that distalization time can be affected by a great range of factors. Conclusions and implications Correction of a half-to-full cusp Class II molar relationship with intraoral distalizers can be achieved in 8.34 months, and this distalization time may not be affected by the kind of anchorage used. Registration The protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017068737). This systematic review is reported according to the PRISMA statement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document