Non-Extraction Management of Class II Malocclusion by Molar Distalization: A Report of Two Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Atrayee Barman ◽  
Praveen Raghav ◽  
M.S. Sidhu ◽  
Seema Grover ◽  
Mona Prabhakar ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Quinzi ◽  
Enrico Marchetti ◽  
Luigi Guerriero ◽  
Floriana Bosco ◽  
Giuseppe Marzo ◽  
...  

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Caprioglio ◽  
Giuliano Maino ◽  
Giovanna Maino ◽  
Lisa Mariani ◽  
Ida Bozzo

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noor Laith Sa'aed ◽  
Chong Ook Park ◽  
Mohamed Bayome ◽  
Jae Hyun Park ◽  
YoonJi Kim ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective:  To evaluate and compare skeletal effects and the amount of molar distalization in maxilla using modified palatal anchorage plate (MPAP) vs headgear appliances in adolescent patients. Materials and Methods:  Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms of 45 Class II malocclusion patients were analyzed; 24 were treated with MPAP appliances (age, 12.4 years) and 21 with headgear (age, 12.1 years). Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. Thirty-two variables were measured and compared between both groups using multivariate analysis of covariates. Results:  There was no significant main effect of the appliance type on the treatment results (P  =  .063). Also, there was no significant main effect of the appliance type on both pre- and posttreatment comparisons (P  =  .0198 and .135, respectively). The MPAP and headgear groups showed significant distalization of maxillary first molars (3.06 ± 0.54 mm and 1.8 ± 0.58 mm, respectively; P < .001). Sagittal skeletal maxillomandibular differences were improved after treatment (P < .001), with no significant differences between the two groups. No significant difference in treatment duration was found between the groups. Conclusions:  The MPAP showed a significant skeletal effect on the maxilla. Both MPAP and headgear resulted in distalization of maxillary first molars. Therefore, it is recommended that clinicians consider the application of MPAP, especially in noncompliant Class II patients.


2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1133-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Stylianos Antonarakis ◽  
Stavros Kiliaridis

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 51-53
Author(s):  
U. H. Vijayashree ◽  
Siddharth Shashidhar Revankar ◽  
Preema Pinto

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document