Upper molar distalization: a critical analysis

Sfondrini, Maria Francesca; Cacciafesta,; Sfondrini, G

doi:10.1034/j.1600-0544.2002.01155.x

Cited by 57 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, the distal jet has been known to lead to mesial rotation of the molars during distalization, and the pendulum appliance has resulted in distal tipping of molars, anchorage loss, and a tendency for reciprocal effects. [10][11][12] In general, the side effects of these appliances are anchorage loss at the reactive part causing flaring of the incisors, distal tipping, and rotation of the distalized molars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal and dental effects of molar distalization using a modified palatal anchorage plate in adolescents

Sa'aed

Park

Bayome

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 5 .063). Also, there was no significant main effect of the appliance type on both pre-and posttreatment comparisons (P 5 .0198 and .135, respectively). The MPAP and headgear groups showed significant distalization of maxillary first molars (3.06 6 0.54 mm and 1.8 6 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. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:657-664.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal and dental effects of molar distalization using a modified palatal anchorage plate in adolescents

Sa'aed

Park

Bayome

et al. 2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The creation and use of intramaxillary intraoral appliances for molar distalization in Class II malocclusion have been made possible through advancements in biomechanics and technology and materials that have 1 The application of force in these appliances can occur from the buccal region, the palatal region, or both. The forces applied can involve friction (sliding mechanics), as with the use of nickel-titanium (NiTi) coil springs, 2 or they can be friction free, as when the pendulum appliance is used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Molar Distalization with Noncompliance Intramaxillary Appliances in Class II Malocclusion

Antonarakis

Kiliaridis

2008

The Angle Orthodontist

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…This open bite generally corrects itself in brachyfacial patients, but it can be a problem in dolichofacial types, especially those with tongue-thrust habits. It is still recommended to treat vertical growth patterns conservatively with extractions, directional headgears and transpalatal bars [2]. The biteopening tendency can be encouraged in brachyfacial patients by bonding the Nance portion of the appliance to the occlusal surfaces of the bicuspids or deciduous molars.…”

Section: Diagnostic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%