Cervical headgear vs pendulum appliance for the treatment of moderate skeletal Class II malocclusion

Mossaz, C; Byloff, Friedrich K.; Kiliaridis, Stavros

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.043

Cited by 25 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6,20,21 However, only few studies 2,8,9 showed findings at the end of fixed appliance therapy (T3), and data relative to long-term dentoskeletal effects (T4) are lacking. Angelieri et al 9 stated that the results of his study should not be applied after the stage of craniofacial growth and development as further longterm investigations are needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several investigations on the use of intraoral distalizing devices have been published; however, most reported data relative to treatment changes that occurred at the end of the distalization phase [4][5][6] or at the end of comprehensive fixed appliance therapy, [7][8][9] whereas data relative to long-term outcomes are lacking. A systematic review 10 revealed that most studies were short term in nature, had a small sample size, and provided no enough evidence on the stability of the changes after distalization therapy over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances

Caprioglio

Fontana²,

Longoni

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the molar movements and skeletal changes associated with Pendulumfixed appliance treatment and the long-term postretention period. Subjects and Methods: The treatment sample consisted of 76 Class II patients, 35 males and 41 females. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at the start of treatment (T1); the end of distalization (T2); the end of orthodontic fixed appliance therapy (T3); and long-term observation (7 years 2 months later; T4). Mean age was 12 years 11 months at T1, 13 years 8 months at T2, 15 years 4 months at T3, and 22 years 5 months at T4. The average amount of Class II molar relationship was 3.1 mm, with a mean overjet of 5.9 mm at the beginning of treatment. A paired t-test was used to identify significant between-group differences between T2-T4 and T3-T4. Results: Distal molar movement was obtained during the distalization phase (T2), and more than half of the distalizing effect was maintained at the end of maxillary growth (T4). Most of the relapse occurred during fixed appliance therapy (T3), whereas no significant change was detected in the postretention period (T4). The molar relationship did not show any significant difference between T2 and T4. The vertical facial dimension increased during the distalization phase (T2) and fixed appliance therapy (T3) but returned to the initial values during the postretention period (T4). Conclusions: The Pendulum appliance induces significant dentoalveolar effects, which can be partially maintained during the long-term period. The Class I molar relationship does not change during completion of individual growth. Increase in vertical facial dimension represents a temporary effect. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:447-454.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances

Caprioglio

Fontana²,

Longoni

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cervical headgear is a commonly used appliance for treating growing patients with Class II correction 8910. Although cervical headgear is used to modify sagittal growth, headgear traction can also be used to move the maxillary molars distally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate changes in the mandibular dentition after maxillary molar distalization using headgear

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate immediate changes in the mandibular dentition after maxillary molar distalization using headgear in non-growing patients. Sixteen patients (mean age, 18.9 ± 2.0 years) with Class II molar relationship and crowding were included in the present study. To correct the molar relationship, headgear was used for maxillary molar distalization. Cone-beam computed tomography-generated half-cephalograms (CG Cephs) and dental casts were used to evaluate dental changes for each subject before and immediately after molar distalization using headgear. The mean duration that subjects wore the headgear was 6.3 months. CG Cephs showed that the first maxillary molars were distalized 4.2 ± 1.6 mm with 9.7° ± 6.1° of distal angulation. The intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths of the mandible increased after maxillary molar distalization. The present study's results suggest that maxillary molar distalization using headgear induces a spontaneous response in the untreated mandibular dentition of non-growing patients.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Fuziy et al [14], using the Pendulum, reported a molar distal movement of 4.6 mm and a distal tipping of 18°, while Mossaz et al [15], using the same appliance, reported a distal movement of 3.8 mm and a distal tipping of 2.9°. In our study, the maxillary first molars were tipped distally by 9° (PP) in the MGBM group and by 9.8° in the Pendulum group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage).MethodsThe sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001.ResultsIn the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars.ConclusionsThe MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time.

show abstract

Cervical headgear vs pendulum appliance for the treatment of moderate skeletal Class II malocclusion

Cited by 25 publications

References 19 publications

Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances

Long-term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances

Immediate changes in the mandibular dentition after maxillary molar distalization using headgear

Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About