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 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 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.

Comparison of Treatment Effects with Modified C-Palatal Plates vs Greenfield Molar Distalizer Appliances in Adolescents

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-208
Author(s):  
Mohammed Alfaifi ◽  
Jae Hyun Park ◽  
Kiyoshi Tai ◽  
Ja Hyeong Ku ◽  
Nikhilesh R Vaid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Molar Distalization ◽  
Skeletal Changes ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maxillary Molar ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors

Objectives: The aim of study was to evaluate skeletodental and soft tissue treatment effects and the amount of maxillary molar distalization with modified C-palatal plates vs. Greenfield molar distalizer appliances in adolescents. Study design: The samples consisted of pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms collected from 39 patients with Class II malocclusion. The MCPP group was comprised of 21 patients (mean age: 11.7 ± 1.3 years) treated with MCPP appliances while the GMD group included 18 patients (mean age: 11.2 ± 0.9 years) treated with GMD. Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. From each cephalograpm, twenty-nine variables were measured for analysis and then the two groups were compared. Descriptive statistics, a paired t-test, and multivariate analysis of variance were performed to compare the treatment effects within and between the groups. Results: There was significant treatmentrelated change in the sagittal position of the maxilla and the mandible within each group. However, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences. The mean maxillary first molar distalization was 3.96 mm in the MCPP group vs. 2.85 mm in the GMD group. Both groups showed minimal distal tipping, but the maxillary incisors were significantly extruded by 3.04 ± 0.89 mm (P < .001) in GMD group. There was no significant difference in treatment duration between the groups. Conclusions: The maxillary first molars of both the MCPP and GMD groups were effectively distalized and there were significant skeletal changes in the maxilla. However, the maxillary incisors were significantly extruded in the GMD group.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document