Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance followed by fixed orthodontic treatment

Effects of pendulum appliance versus clear aligners in the vertical dimension during Class II malocclusion treatment: a randomized prospective clinical trial

Background

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects on vertical dentoskeletal dimension produced by Pendulum appliance and Clear Aligners in patients with Class II malocclusion.

Trial design

This is a prospective two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.

Methods

The Pendulum Group (PG) consisted of 20 patients (15F, 5 M) with a mean age of 17.2 ± 4.3 years. The Clear Aligners Group (CAG) comprised 20 patients (13F, 7 M) with a mean age of 17.2 ± 3.2 years. Distalization’s protocol in PG involved the activation of TMA wires till the achievement of Class I molar relationship. A protocol of sequential distalization was applied in the CAG. For each subject lateral cephalograms have been analyzed before treatment (T1) and at the end of the therapy (T2). Descriptive statistics and statistical between-group comparisons (PG vs CAG) were calculated for the craniofacial starting forms at T1 and for the T2–T1 changes. Statistical between-group comparisons for the T2–T1 changes were performed with independent samples t-tests (P < 0.05).

Results

The PG showed significantly greater increases in SN^GoGn° when compared with CAG (+ 2.1 and − 0.3 degrees, respectively). Clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane with significantly greater increase of SN^POccl angle was observed in PG (+ 2.8 degrees) when compared with CAG (− 4.2 degrees).

The PG revealed a significant increase in the N-Me variable with a mean change of + 4.4 mm compared to the CAG with mean values of − 1.2 mm. The PG showed an increase in the ArGo^GoMe angle (+ 0.7° degrees) compared to the CAG (− 3.4° degrees). The PG showed significantly greater increases in both maxillary and mandibular first molar to palatal plane (+ 1.3 and + 2.1 mm, respectively) when compared with CAG (− 0.9 and − 0.2 mm, respectively).

Conclusions

Upper molar distalization with clear aligners represents a valid alternative to non-extraction treatment of Class II malocclusion, reducing the extrusion of maxillary first molars and improving the management of the occlusal plane and vertical dimension.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05298280. Registered 28 March 2022—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov.

The effect of third molars on maxillary molar distalisation using a miniscrew-supported 3D® maxillary bimetric distalising arch

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of third molars on the efficiency and biomechanics of a novel miniscrew-supported 3D® Maxillary Bimetric Distalising Arch (3D-MBDA).

Methods: Twenty-three patients, whose third molars were either extracted at the beginning of treatment (Group 1, n =11) or retained (Group 2, n =12), were included in the study. Lateral cephalometric films and dental casts, taken at the beginning (T0) and at the end of upper molar distalisation (T1), were analysed to study the differences between groups.

Results: Crown distalisation of the first molars was similar between the groups; however, root distalisation, both at the trifurcation and apex levels, intrusion at the mesiobuccal cusp tip, and the distalisation rate were significantly higher in Group 1. The resultant tipping of the first molars in both groups was mesially-directed, unlike the usual distal tipping. The second molars distalised more, displaced less vestibularly and rotated mesiobuccally in Group 1, whereas they demonstrated a significantly higher vestibular displacement and distobuccal rotation in Group 2. The mean distalisation time was significantly shorter in Group 1 when compared to Group 2. The miniscrew success rate was 95.5% for Group 1 and 91.7% for Group 2.

Conclusion: The miniscrew-supported 3D-MBDA was found to have greater effects on root distalisation and the final inclination of the molars. The third molars were associated with limited root movement, unfavourable displacement of the second molars, as well as a slower distalisation rate. Therefore, the extraction of third molars prior to distalisation is recommended, especially when the miniscrew-supported 3D-MBDA is the appliance choice.

Smart distalization of the upper arch with an easy, efficient and no-compliance procedure

In conventional Class II treatment, distalisation of the maxillary arch usually requires multiple phases of tooth movement during which anchorage loss can occur. In order to solve this issue, a rational and simple technique has been developed. Instead of using intraoral distalisers along with palatal mini-implants, Ni-Ti superelastic loops are used to obtain molar distalisation while buccal interradicular miniscrews (BIM), preferably placed between the roots of upper premolars, supply the necessary anchorage. Once the distalisation of molars and second premolars is performed, miniscrews are placed between the roots of first molars and second premolars after removing the previous miniscrews. Elastic chains or tie-backs, which go from the new miniscrews to the hooks of a 0.019×0.025-inch stainless-steel archwire, produce the retraction of incisors, canines and first premolars with optimal control of anchorage. Clinical cases are shown to illustrate the technique.

Sagittal, rotational and transverse changes with three intraoral distalization force systems: Jones jig, distal jet and first class

Background

To compare the maxillary dentoalveolar changes of patients treated with three distalization force systems: Jones Jig, Distal Jet and First Class appliances, using digitized models.

Material and Methods

The retrospective sample comprised 118 digitized models of 59 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into three groups: Group 1 consisted of 22 patients treated with the Jones Jig appliance; Group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet, and Group 3 comprised 17 patients treated with the First Class appliance. Pretreatment and post-distalization plaster models of all patients were digitized and evaluated with OrthoAnalyzerTM software. The pretreatment and post-distalization variables regarding sagittal, rotational and transverse changes were compared by the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on normality.

Results

All appliances presented similar amounts of distalization. The Distal Jet appliance promoted significantly smaller mesial displacement of premolars and greater expansion of posterior teeth. The First Class presented the smallest rotation of the maxillary molars and treatment time.

Conclusions

The distalizers were effective in correcting Class II molar relationship, however, a palatal force seems to provide fewer undesirable effects. Additionally, the degree of rotation and expansion was associated with the side of force application.

Key words:Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Orthodontics, Corrective, Distalizers.

Efficiency of the skeletonized Pendulum K appliance for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization : A clinical pilot study

PURPOSE

Conventional anchorage with exclusively intraorally anchored appliances for non-compliance molar distalization combines a palatal acrylic button with periodontal anchorage. This type of anchorage is critically discussed because of the temporary hygienic impairment of the palate and the uncertain anchoring quality of the button. A purely dentally/periodontally anchored Pendulum K appliance was developed, which is exclusively anchored via four occlusal rests. The aims of this pilot study were to examine the suitability of the skeletonized Pendulum K for distalization of maxillary molars, and to investigate the quality of this alternative anchoring modality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 10 patients received skeletonized Pendulum K appliances attached to all maxillary premolars for bilateral molar distalization. Supporting anchorage through an acrylic button adjacent to the anterior palate was not used. The pendulum springs were initially activated on both sides with a distalization force of 220 cN each and provided with uprighting and toe-in bends. The specific force/moment system was regularly reactivated intraorally by adjustment of the distal screw.

RESULTS

The study demonstrates the suitability of the skeletonized Pendulum K appliance for the distalization of maxillary molars (3.28 ± 0.73 mm). Side effects on the molars were slight distal tipping (3.50 ± 2.51°/PP, 3.00 ± 1.41°/SN) and mesial inward rotation (average 2.75 ± 7.50° and 4.50 ± 12.77°). Significant anchorage loss occurred in the form of mesialization of the incisors by 1.40 ± 0.82 mm and of the first premolars by 2.28 ± 0.85 mm.

CONCLUSION

The skeletonized Pendulum K appliance allows compliance-free upper molar distalization. Exclusively dental/periodontal anchorage resulted in a lower percentage of molar distalization compared to a conventional anchoring preparation of the Pendulum K with a palatal acrylic button. Anchorage loss had a comparatively stronger effect on the anchoring premolars but less on the incisors. Typical side effects on the molars such as distal tipping and mesial inward rotation were remarkably low.

Transverse stability of Class II malocclusion correction with the pendulum appliance

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the stability of transverse changes after Class II malocclusion correction with the pendulum fixed distalizer, followed by preadjusted edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances.

METHODS

This longitudinal study was conducted in the maxillary dental casts of 20 Class II malocclusion subjects (mean age, 12.5 years; 14 females and 6 males). Eighty 3-dimensional maxillary dental casts were analyzed; 20 at the beginning of treatment, 20 after distalization, 20 after edgewise appliance debonding, and 20 at 5 years posttreatment. Maxillary transverse distances between canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars were analyzed using Geomagic Studio 5 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC).

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in intercanine distance during and after treatment. There were significant interfirst and intersecond premolar distance increases during treatment. There were significant interfirst and intersecond molar distance increases during the distalization phase. However, there were significant decreases in these distances at the end of treatment. There were no significant long-term posttreatment changes.

CONCLUSIONS

The intercanine distance remains stable during and after treatment. The interfirst and intersecond premolar distances significantly increase during treatment and remain stable after treatment. The interfirst and intersecond molar distances increase during the distalization phase, decrease at the end of treatment, and remain stable after treatment.

Pendulum and modified pendulum appliances for maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion - a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the quantitative effects of the pendulum appliance and modified pendulum appliances for maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our systematic search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus and key journals and review articles; the date of the last search was 30 January 2017. We graded the methodological quality of the studies by means of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, developed for the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP).

RESULTS

In total, 203 studies were identified for screening, and 25 studies were eligible. The quality assessment rated four (16%) of the study as being of strong quality and 21 (84%) of these studies as being of moderate quality. The pendulum appliances showed mean molar distalization of 2-6.4 mm, distal tipping of molars from 6.67° to 14.50° and anchorage loss with mean premolar and incisor mesial movement of 1.63-3.6 mm and 0.9-6.5 mm, respectively. The bone anchored pendulum appliances (BAPAs) showed mean molar distalization of 4.8-6.4 mm, distal tipping of molars from 9° to 11.3° and mean premolar distalization of 2.7-5.4 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Pendulum and modified pendulum appliances are effective in molar distalization. Pendulum appliance with K-loop modification, implant supported pendulum appliance and BAPA significantly reduced anchorage loss of the anterior teeth and distal tipping of the molar teeth.

Soft tissue effects of three different Class II/1-camouflage treatment strategies

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this retrospective study was to compare soft tissue effects of Class II treatments with the forsus fatigue resistant device (FRD), the pendulum appliance, and the extraction of two maxillary premolars, all of which were combined with pre-adjusted fixed appliances.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The sample of 54 patients with Class II malocclusions was divided in three groups: group I patients (mean age = 15.91 years) were treated with the FRD concurrently used with fixed appliances; group II patients (mean age = 16.08 years) were treated with the pendulum appliance combined with a Nance and headgear followed by fixed appliances; and group III patients (mean age = 19.04 years) were treated with the extraction of two maxillary premolars with miniscrew anchorage. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal parameters were measured on pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms. The changes from T1 to T2 were compared between the groups using Kruskal-Wallis test, and treatment differences were evaluated with the Wilcoxon test at p < 0.05.

RESULT

Soft tissue measurement changes related to the upper and lower lips were significantly greater in group II than in group III (p < 0.05). Upper incisor measurement changes were significantly different between groups II and III. Lower incisor measurement changes were significantly different between groups I and III and groups II and III (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Pendulum and extraction treatment groups showed significant differences in relation with the upper and lower lip positional changes, which were significantly greater in the pendulum group. Treatment time with the extraction treatment was statistically shorter than with the nonextraction protocols.

Evaluation of long-term stability of mesiodistal axial inclinations of maxillary molars through panoramic radiographs in subjects treated with Pendulum appliance

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the stability of mesiodistal inclination of maxillary molars produced by a pendulum appliance, five years after completion of orthodontic treatment. Angulation changes were compared to an untreated sample.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 20 patients (14 females and 6 males) with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion that was treated through molar distalization with a pendulum appliance followed by cervical headgear and full fixed appliances. Maxillary molar inclination was evaluated through panoramic radiograph. The mean age at pretreatment was 14.3 ± 1.6 years, whereas at immediate post-treatment it was 18.6 ± 1.8 years, and at long-term post-treatment it was 23.8 ± 2.0 years. A control group of 16 untreated individuals with untreated normocclusion ranging in age from 12 to 17 years old were used as comparison group. Data were statistically analyzed with independent t-tests and ANOVA test followed by Tukey post-hoc tests.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found between T1(94.50) and T2 (98.80) as well as between T2 and T3 (94.70) for maxillary first molars. Maxillary second molars did not show any statistically significant positional changes during the evaluated time periods T1 (107.50), T2 (109.30) and T3 (106.90).

CONCLUSION

Although maxillary first molars underwent distal crown inclination immediately after treatment, approximately five years thereafter their roots tended to upright close to the pretreatment positions.

Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy using pendulum and distal screw appliances

OBJECTIVE

To compare dentoalveolar and skeletal changes produced by the pendulum appliance (PA) and the distal screw appliance (DS) in Class II patients.

METHODS

Forty-three patients (19 men, 24 women) with Class II malocclusion were retrospectively selected for the study. Twenty-four patients (mean age, 12.2 ± 1.5 years) were treated with the PA, and 19 patients (mean age, 11.3 ± 1.9 years) were treated with the DS. The mean distalization time was 7 months for the PA group and 9 months for the DS group. Lateral cephalograms were obtained at T1, before treatment, and at T2, the end of distalization. A Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical comparisons of the two groups between T1 and T2.

RESULTS

PA and DS were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (4.7 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molars showed less distal tipping in the DS group than in the PA group (3.2° vs. 9.0°, respectively). Moreover, significant premolar anchorage loss (2.7 mm) and incisor proclination (5.0°) were noted in the PA group, whereas premolar distal movement (1.9 mm) and no significant changes at the incisor (0.1°) were observed in the DS group. No significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes were detected between the two groups during the distalization phase.

CONCLUSIONS

PA and DS seem to be equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars; however, greater distal molar tipping and premolar anchorage loss can be expected using PA.

Cephalometric effects of the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment

Objective

The aim of this study was to cephalometrically assess the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Class II malocclusion treatment performed with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances.

Methods

The sample comprised 25 patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances, at a mean initial age of 12.90 years old. The mean time of the entire orthodontic treatment was 3.89 years. The distalization phase lasted for 0.85 years, after which the fixed appliance was used for 3.04 years. Cephalograms were used at initial (T₁), post-distalization (T₂) and final phases of treatment (T₃). For intragroup comparison of the three phases evaluated, dependent ANOVA and Tukey tests were used.

Results

Jones Jig appliance did not interfere in the maxillary and mandibular component and did not change maxillomandibular relationship. Jones Jig appliance promoted distalization of first molars with anchorage loss, mesialization and significant extrusion of first and second premolars, as well as a significant increase in anterior face height at the end of treatment. The majority of adverse effects that occur during intraoral distalization are subsequently corrected during corrective mechanics. Buccal inclination and protrusion of mandibular incisors were identified. By the end of treatment, correction of overjet and overbite was observed.

Conclusions

Jones Jig appliance promoted distalization of first molars with anchorage loss represented by significant mesial movement and extrusion of first and second premolars, in addition to a significant increase in anterior face height.

Comparative cephalometric study of Class II malocclusion treatment with Pendulum and Jones jig appliances followed by fixed corrective orthodontics

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to cephalometrically compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion with Pendulum and Jones jig appliances, followed by fixed corrective orthodontics, and to compare such effects to a control group.

METHODS

The sample was divided into three groups. Group 1: 18 patients treated with Pendulum, Group 2: 25 patients treated with Jones jig, and Group 3: 19 young subjects with untreated Class II malocclusions and initial mean age of 12.88 years. The chi-square test was applied to assess severity and gender distribution. Groups 1 and 2 were compared to the control group by means of the one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests in order to differentiate treatment changes from those occurred by craniofacial growth.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes among the three groups with regard to the components of the maxilla and the mandible, maxillomandibular relationship, cephalometric and tegumental pattern. Buccal tipping of mandibular incisors was significantly greater in the experimental groups and increased mesial angulation of the maxillary second molars was found in the Jones jig group. In the experimental groups, dental relationship, overbite and overjet were corrected.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be stated that the distalization achieved its purpose of correcting the Class II.

Response of the maxillary dentition to a statically determinate one-couple system with tip-back mechanics: A prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the effects of tip-back mechanics on the maxillary first molars and incisors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen subjects with Class II end-on malocclusion were treated with an intrusion arch to achieve distalization of the maxillary molar through tip-back mechanics. Lateral cephalograms were taken prior to molar tip-back (T1), after molar tip-back (T2), and after molar root uprighting (T3). Data were analyzed using the Friedman's and Wilcoxon signed rank tests to evaluate differences in time points (P ≤ .016).

RESULTS

The maxillary first molar distalized 1.53 mm (P = .001) with 6.65° (P = .001) of distal tipping and 0.86 mm (P = .001) of extrusion at T2. Minor relapse of the first molar (mesial direction) was seen at T3. The maxillary incisors flared labially 0.4 mm, and the incisor root apex moved palatally 1.19 mm (P = .005) at T2. At T3, the incisor root apex moved palatally 1.5 mm (P = .003) from T1. An angular change from T1 of 3.31° (P = .008) and 3.53° (P = .014) was seen at T2 and T3, respectively, as a result of palatal root movement of the maxillary incisors.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant amount of distalization of maxillary molars was attained at the crown level with tip-back mechanics. Palatal root angulation change was significant in the incisors with minimal anteroposterior movement of the incisal edge.

Maxillary molar distalization therapy in adult patients: a multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate dento-skeletal changes following conventional anchorage molar distalization therapy in adult patients.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Thirty-three patients (25 women, mean age 23 years 1 months ± 3 months; 8 men, mean age 28 years 3 months ± 7 months) were recruited from 4 Board Certified specialists. All subjects underwent molar distalization therapy using intra-oral distalizing appliances.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Cephalometric headfilms were available for all subjects before (T1) and at the end of comprehensive treatment (T2). The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t-test.

RESULTS

Mean total treatment time was 3 years 2 months ± 6 months. Maxillary first molar distalized 2.9 ± 0.6 mm contributing 64.4% to Class II molar correction, whereas mandibular first molar showed a concomitant mesial movement of 1.6 ± 0.5 mm. Maxillary incisors retroclined an average of 5.8° ± 3.9°, lower incisors proclined 4.1° ± 1.1° and the occlusal plane rotated downwards and backwards 1.8° ± 2.1°. Clockwise rotation of the mandible (1.7° ± 0.5°) and increase in lower facial height (2.5 ± 1.5 mm) were also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary molar distalization therapy can be successfully performed in adult patients despite a slight increase in vertical facial dimension should be considered.

An active, skeletally anchored transpalatal appliance for derotation, distalization and vertical control of maxillary first molars

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this investigation was to evaluate treatment outcomes of the skeletally anchored 'Frog' appliance.

DESIGN

A single-centre, retrospective study was performed.

SETTING

Private orthodontic practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who had undergone comprehensive orthodontic treatment with the skeletally anchored 'Frog' appliance.

METHODS

43 participants (20 males and 23 females) who had received treatment with the skeletally anchored 'Frog' appliance where included. In order to explore dentoalveolar and skeletal treatment outcomes, pre- (T1) and post- (T2) treatment measurements were performed on patients' plaster models and cephalometric images. Comparisons between T1 and T2 were made by means of a Student's t-test. All statistical analyses were conducted at the 0·05 level of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Study model analysis revealed a statistically significant derotation of maxillary molars (μΔT2-T1=9·5°, P<0·001) as well as an increase in transverse arch dimensions at the end of treatment (μΔT2-T1=2·2 mm, P<0·001). Cephalometric changes included bodily distalization of maxillary molars (μΔ(T2-T1)=-1·9 mm, P<0·001), as well as noticeable angular displacement (μΔT2-T1=4·1°, P=0·004). No significant anchorage loss was observed, as displayed by the limited change in maxillary incisor position (μΔ(T1-T2)=0·2 mm, P=0·45). In addition, excellent vertical control of the maxillary molars was achieved, with no change in the mandibular plane (ML/NSL) angle (μΔT2-T1=0·3°, P=0·38).

CONCLUSIONS

The skeletal 'Frog' is effective in derotating and distalizing maxillary molars without anchorage loss and with excellent vertical control.

Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy with erupted second molar: Segmented versus Quad Pendulum appliance

Background

There are controversial opinions about the effect of erupted second molars on distalization of the first molars. Most of the distalizing devices are anchored on the first molars, without including second molars; so, differences between sequentially distalize maxillary molars (second molar followed by the first molar) or distalize second and first molars together are not clear. The aim of the study was to compare sequential versus simultaneous molar distalization therapy with erupted second molar using two different modified Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances.

Methods

The treatment sample consisted of 35 class II malocclusion subjects, divided in two groups: group 1 consisted of 24 patients (13 males and 11 females) with a mean pre-treatment age of 12.9 years, treated with the Segmented Pendulum (SP) and fixed appliances; group 2 consisted of 11 patients (6 males and 5 females) with a mean pre-treatment age of 13.2 years, treated with the Quad Pendulum (QP) and fixed appliances. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T1), at the end of distalization (T2), and at the end of orthodontic fixed appliance therapy (T3). A Student t test was used to identify significant between-group differences between T1 to T2, T2 to T3, and T1 to T3.

Results

QP and SP were equally effective in distalizing maxillary molars (3.5 and 4 mm, respectively) between T1 and T2; however, the maxillary first molar showed less distal tipping (4.6° vs. 9.6°) and more extrusion (1.1 vs. 0.2 mm) in the QP group than in the SP group, as well as the vertical facial dimension, which increased more in the QP group (1.2°) than in the SP group (0.7°). At T3, the QP group maintained greater increase in lower anterior facial height and molar extrusion and decrease in overbite than the SP group.

Conclusion

Quad Pendulum seems to have greater increase in vertical dimension and molar extrusion than the Segmented Pendulum.

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

OBJECTIVE

To describe the molar movements and skeletal changes associated with Pendulum-fixed 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.

Non-compliance maxillary molar distalizing appliances: an overview of the last decade

OBJECTIVES

To perform a literature review focusing on the use of non-compliance intraoral appliances for molar distalization therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search ranged from January 1999 to December 2009 in order to describe dento-alveolar changes and skeletal vertical modifications following the use of conventional anchorage intraoral distalizing appliances. The quality of the retrieved studies was ranked on a 12-points scale, from low to high quality.

RESULTS

A total of 214 articles were found and only 24 were considered eligible for the critical examination. Maxillary first molar distalization ranged from 6.4mm to 0.5mm with a concomitant distal tipping from 18.5° to bodily distalization. A smaller amount of distal movement and a greater amount of crown tipping can be noted at second molars. Premolar anchorage loss and incisor proclination represent an unavoidable side-effect and ranged from 4.33 mm to 0.73 mm and from 13.7° to 0.6° respectively. Skeletal vertical modifications were noted. Increase in vertical facial dimension ranged from 1.5° to -1.8° and lower anterior facial height ranged from an increase of 3.2 to a decrease of 0.6 mm. The assessment of study quality showed that 19 studies were of low quality, 3 of medium quality and 2 of medium-high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary molar distalization can be effectively performed with the use of noncompliance intraoral appliances. As a consequence, premolar anchorage loss, incisor proclination and a slight increase in vertical facial dimension can occur. Because of the lack of high-quality studies the findings of this review should be carefully interpreted.

Comparação entre os resultados oclusais e os tempos de tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II por meio da utilização do aparelho Pendulum e das extrações de dois pré-molares superiores

OBJETIVO: comparar os resultados oclusais e os tempos de tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II realizado com o aparelho Pendulum e com extrações de dois pré-molares superiores. MÉTODOS: a amostra constituiu-se dos modelos de gesso e das telerradiografias de 48 pacientes com má oclusão de Classe II, divididos em dois grupos de acordo com o protocolo de tratamento. O grupo 1 foi composto por 22 pacientes tratados com o aparelho Pendulum, com idade inicial média de 14,44 anos. O grupo 2 constituiu-se por 26 pacientes tratados com extrações de dois pré-molares superiores, com idade inicial média de 13,66 anos. Os resultados oclusais obtidos pelos dois protocolos de tratamento utilizados foram avaliados em modelos de gesso por meio do índice oclusal PAR, enquanto o tempo de tratamento foi calculado a partir das anotações clínicas presentes nos prontuários. As avaliações foram realizadas por meio do teste t independente. RESULTADOS E CONCLUSÕES: os resultados oclusais obtidos não demonstraram diferenças entre os grupos, porém o grupo 2 apresentou um tempo de tratamento significativamente menor.

Comparison of the effects produced by headgear and pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment

This study compared the effects produced by two different molar distalizers, namely cervical headgear (CHG) and the intraoral pendulum appliance, associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. The headgear group comprised 30 patients (19 females, 11 males), with an initial age of 13.07 years [standard deviation (SD) = 1.3], treated with CHG and fixed orthodontic appliances for a mean period of 3.28 years, and the pendulum group 22 patients (15 females, 7 males), with initial age of 13.75 years (SD = 1.86), treated with the pendulum appliance followed by fixed orthodontic appliances for a mean period of 4.12 years. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the start (T1) and on completion (T2) of orthodontic treatment. The pendulum and CHG groups were similar as to initial age, severity of the Class II malocclusion, gender distribution, initial cephalometric characteristics, and initial and final treatment priority index (TPI). Only treatment time was not similar between the groups, with a need for annualization for data for the pendulum group. The data were compared with independent t-tests. There was significantly greater restriction of maxillary forward growth and improvement of the skeletal maxillomandibular relationship in the CHG group (P < 0.05). The maxillary molars were more mesially tipped and extruded and the mandibular molars more uprighted in the CHG group compared with the pendulum group (P < 0.05). There was more labial tipping of the mandibular incisors and greater overbite reduction in the pendulum group. The pendulum appliance produced only dentoalveolar effects, different from the CHG appliance, which restricted maxillary forward displacement, thus improving the skeletal maxillomandibular relationship.