scholarly journals Comparison Between Bone Supported -Pendulum Appliance and Lever-arm Mini-implant System in Maxillary Molar Distali zation in Class II Malocclusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 3047-3056
Author(s):  
Mohammed Farag ◽  
Medhat El-Shakhawy ◽  
Mahmoud El-Shennawy ◽  
Ghada El-Mehy
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Lever Arm ◽  
Maxillary Molar ◽  
Pendulum Appliance ◽  
Implant System

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

Effects of the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion

2009 ◽  
Vol 136 (6) ◽  
pp. 833-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Rodrigues de Almeida-Pedrin ◽  
José Fernando Castanha Henriques ◽  
Renato Rodrigues de Almeida ◽  
Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida ◽  
James A. McNamara
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Pendulum Appliance ◽  
Fixed Appliances

scholarly journals Comparative efficiency of Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary premolar extractions and edgewire appliances

2009 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. M. Pinzan-Vercelino ◽  
G. Janson ◽  
A. Pinzan ◽  
R. R. de Almeida ◽  
M. R. de Freitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Comparative Efficiency ◽  
Pendulum Appliance

scholarly journals Anchorage control using miniscrews in comparison to Essix appliance in treatment of postpubertal patients with Class II malocclusion using Carrière Motion Appliance:

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed S. Fouda ◽  
Khaled H. Attia ◽  
Amr M. Abouelezz ◽  
Mohamed Abd El-Ghafour ◽  
Mai H. Aboulfotouh
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Lower Incisor ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Maxillary Molar ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Anchorage Loss

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate anchorage control using miniscrews vs an Essix appliance in treatment of Class II malocclusion by distalization using the Carrière Motion Appliance (CMA). Materials and Methods Twenty-four postpubertal female patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion were randomly distributed into two equal groups. CMA was bonded in both groups, and one group was treated with miniscrews as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 18.0 years) while the other group was treated with an Essix appliance as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 17.8 years). For each patient, two cone-beam computed tomographic scans were obtained: one preoperatively and another after completion of distalization. Results In the Essix appliance group, there was a statistically significant anterior movement (2.2 ± 1.43 mm) as well as proclination of the lower incisor (5.3° ± 4.0°), compared to a nonsignificant anterior movement (0.06 ± 1.45 mm) and proclination (0.86° ± 2.22°) in the miniscrew group. The amount of maxillary molar distalization was higher in the miniscrew group (2.57 ± 1.52 mm) than in the Essix appliance group (1.53 ± 1.11 mm); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions Miniscrews led to a decrease in the amount of anchorage loss in the mandibular incisors, both in terms of anterior movement and proclination.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Modified Pendulum Appliance for the Correction of Class II Malocclusion: A Clinical Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 250-257
Author(s):  
Monika Koul ◽  
Ayushi Singla ◽  
Anil Singla ◽  
Vivek Mahajan ◽  
Harupinder Singh Jaj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Pendulum Appliance

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document