Molar distalization with a pendulum appliance K-loop combination

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dentoalveolar effects of a pendulum appliance supported buccally by a K-loop, and to compare these with a cervical headgear (CHG) group. The records of 30 patients with skeletal Class I and dental Class II malocclusions were divided in to two groups: Patients in group 1 (seven females and eight males; mean age, 15.0 +/- 3.4 years) were treated with a pendulum appliance supported with a K-loop buccally, while in group 2 (10 females and 5 males; mean age, 14.2 +/- 2.9 years), the patients were treated with CHG. Standardized lateral cephalograms and study models were taken at the beginning of treatment (T0) and at the end of distal molar movement (T1). T0-T1 changes within the groups were analysed with a paired t-test, and between the groups with a t-test. The mean amount of distalization was 4.53 +/- 1.46 mm in group 1 and 2.23 +/- 1.68 mm in group 2. The mean amount of distal tipping for group 1 was 5.13 +/- 4.90 degrees; the mean amount of mesial tipping for group 2 was 0.80 +/- 2.27 degrees. Intrusion and mesiobuccal rotation of the maxillary molars were achieved in both groups. In group 1, the amount of labial protrusion and tipping of the maxillary incisors was not statistically significant. In group 2, palatoversion and retrusion of the maxillary incisors was statistically significant (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). The two major disadvantages of intraoral appliances, which are distal tipping of molars and loss of anchorage at the anterior teeth, were significantly decreased with the use of a pendulum appliance K-loop combination.

Molar distalization with 2K appliance: one-year follow-up

“…This finding is in agreement with Acar et al . [14] who had distalized the maxillary molars using a pendulum K-loop combination. Hence, the design of this appliance satisfied the biomechanical needs of the patients.…”

Pendulum appliance and K-loop combination for molar distalization: A case report

“…Non-extraction line of the treatment of Class II malocclusion differs in growing and adult patients. [1] A common strategy to correct Class II malocclusion in growing patients, using non-extraction protocol, is to distalize the maxillary molars to achieve Class I molar relationship. Extraoral traction with headgear is one of the earliest and efficient methods to move molars distally, although they depend primarily on patient cooperation.…”

Avaliação das dimensões do arco dentário superior decorrentes do uso de aparelho parcial fixo 4 x 2 na fase da dentição mista

“…A utilização de aparelhos removíveis utilizando molas digitais ou parafusos como mecanismo de ação, é uma alternativa de tratamento, mas por ser removível e depender da cooperação do paciente e do controle da força aplicada ao aparelho, o sucesso do tratamento pode ser comprometido (Tenti, 1993;Proffit, 2007). Ainda, para a recuperação dos espaços no arco dentário superior, pode-se utilizar o aparelho AEB, que também necessita de considerável colaboração do paciente (Wieslander, 1974;Bjerklin,1984;Taner et al, 2003;Acar et al, 2010). Dentre os diversos dispositivos fixos, podemos citar o…”