Occlusal Plane Changes After Molar Distalization With a Pendulum Appliance in Growing Patients with Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Cephalometric Study

Upper airways changes associated with orthodontic molar distalization by Pendulum appliance in adolescent patients: a multicenter retrospective cephalometric study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to perform a two-dimensional analysis of upper airway changes in adolescent patients following molar distalization with the Pendulum appliance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study involved the cephalometric analysis of 88 patients, retrospectively categorized into two groups: skeletal Class II with a dental Class II molar relationship (36 patients, mean age 12.6 ± 1.1 years) and skeletal Class I with a dental Class II molar relationship (54 patients, mean age 12.3 ± 1.2 years). Changes were observed using lateral radiographs before (T0) and after Pendulum appliance removal (T1); treatment time averaged 7 months. Upper airways were subsequently analyzed by tracing lateral radiographs. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed a normal distribution of the data, therefore parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Intragroup changes between T0 and T1 were evaluated using paired t-tests, and intergroup differences were assessed using independent student t-tests; statistical significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were observed in the skeletal measurements that characterized both groups, particularly in ANB and Wits appraisal, at T0 (P < 0.001). After molar distalization, Class I and Class II groups reported no statistically significant differences with changes almost equal to zero between timepoints (P > 0.05). Additionally, intergroup comparisons of airway changes at T1 did not show statistically significant differences (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Pendulum appliance does not significantly change the upper airway dimensions in Class I and Class II malocclusion patients, thereby minimizing potential respiratory risks.

Three-dimensional analysis of the relationship between mandibular retromolar space and positional traits of third molars in non-hyperdivergent adults

BACKGROUND

The anatomical position of the mandibular third molars (M3s) is located in the distal-most portions of the molar area. In some previous literature, researchers evaluated the relationship between retromolar space (RS) and different classifications of M3 in three‑dimensional (3D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS

Two hundred six M3s from 103 patients were included. M3s were grouped according to four classification criteria: PG-A/B/C, PG-I/II/III, mesiodistal angle and buccolingual angle. 3D hard tissue models were reconstructed by CBCT digital imaging. RS was measured respectively by utilizing the fitting WALA ridge plane (WP) which was fitted by the least square method and the occlusal plane (OP) as reference planes. SPSS (version 26) was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In all criteria evaluated, RS decreased steadily from the crown to the root (P < 0.05), the minimum was at the root tip. From PG-A classification, PG-B classification to PG-C classification and from PG-I classification, PG-II classification to PG-III classification, RS both appeared a diminishing tendency (P < 0.05). As the degree of mesial tilt decreased, RS appeared an increasing trend (P < 0.05). RS in classification criteria of buccolingual angle had no statistical difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

RS was associated with positional classifications of the M3. In the clinic, RS can be evaluated by watching the Pell&Gregory classification and mesial angle of M3.

Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types

Background

The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction.

Methods

Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a normodivergent group (Group N; 30° ≤ SN^GoGn < 36°) consisting of 38 patients (17M, 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) and a hyperdivergent (Group H; SN^GoGn ≥ 36°) including 26 patients (12M, 14F; mean age 13.7 ± 1.1 years). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T0) and after treatment (T1) and cephalometric changes were calculated for 10 linear and 13 angular variables. The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of data, hence parametric tests were employed. The Student t-test was used to compare groups at baseline. The paired t-test was used to analyze intragroup changes between timepoints, and the Student t-test for intergroup comparisons. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

The Class II division 1 malocclusion was successfully corrected, and the facial profile improved both in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. Divergency increased by 0.76 ± 1.99° in Group N (p = 0.02) while it decreased -0.23 ± 2.25° (p = 0.60); These changes were not significant between groups after treatment (p = 0.680). Most dentoskeletal measurements changed significantly within groups but none of them showed statistically significant differences between groups after treatment. Dental and soft tissue changes were in accordance with the biomechanics used for this Class II orthodontic therapy.

Discussion

The effect of orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion including extraction of the maxillary first molars in growing patients can be considered clinically equivalent in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. For this reason, this orthodontic treatment can be considered a viable option in the armamentarium of the Class II Division I therapy for both facial types.

Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions

The aim of the present retrospective study was evaluating skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes of two groups of Class II patients orthodontically treated with extractions of upper first premolars (U4 group) and upper first molars (U6 group). In total, 21 patient records (9M and 12F; mean age 12.5 ± 1.2 years) were selected for the U4 group, and 38 patient records (17M and 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) were recruited for the U6 group. Twenty cephalometric variables were analysed on standardised lateral cephalograms at baseline (T0) and at the end of orthodontic treatment (T1). Means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for both groups and increments were calculated. After revealing the normal distribution of data with the Shapiro–Wilk test, Student’s t-test was used to compare variables at T0 between groups. A paired t-test was used to analyse changes between time points within each group, and Student’s t-test to compare differences between groups at T1. Both groups showed a significant increase in the distance among upper second molars and the vertical pterygoid line (PTV-maxillary second molar centroid U6 group: 6.66 ± 5.00 mm; U4 group: 3.66 ± 2.20 mm). Moreover, the distance of upper incisors to the palatal plane significantly increased (PP-maxillary incisor tip U6 group: 1.09 ± 1.52 mm; U4 group: 0.20 ± 2.00 mm; p = 0.061). Significant changes were found for overjet (U6 group: −4.86 ± 1.62 mm; U4 group: −3.27 ± 1.90 mm; p = 0.001). The distance between upper lip and esthetic plane showed a significantly reduction in both groups (ULip-E Plane U6 group: −2.98 ± 1.65 mm; U4 group: −1.93 ± 1.57 mm). No statistically significant changes were found in sagittal or vertical skeletal values. The significantly larger reduction of upper lip protrusion and overjet in the U6 group compared to the U4 group suggests preferring molar extraction treatment for severe Class II with protrusive soft tissues’ profile and increased overjet. Since no differences on vertical values were found, an increased SN^GoGn angle should not be considered a discriminating factor for choosing molar extraction treatment.

Does Early Treatment Improve Clinical Outcome of Class II Patients? A Retrospective Study

The present study was carried out to evaluate the benefits from one-phase Class II Early Treatment (ET) using extraoral forces and functional appliances but without intermaxillary forces and eventual lower leeway space preservation compared to two-phase Class II Late Treatment (LT) with the need for extractions and full fixed appliances as well as lower incisor proclination. The ET group (n = 239, 115 M, 124 F, mean age 10.6 ± 1.2 years), with first premolars not in contact and the second deciduous lower molars preserved, was compared to the LT group (n = 288, 137 M, 151 F, mean age 12.4 ± 1.5 years). The ET group was first treated with headgears, growth guide appliances, or Teuscher activators and, in borderline crowding cases, with lower space maintenance by a lingual arch, lip bumper, or fixed utility arch. The LT group and the second phase of ET were treated with full fixed appliances including intermaxillary forces such as Class II elastics or noncompliance devices; headgear and a growth guide appliance were also used. Cephalograms and plaster models were taken before (T1) and after treatment (T2) to calculate cephalometric changes and space balance discrepancies. The differences between T1 and T2 were analyzed by a t-test for normally distributed data and by the Mann-Whitney Test for nonnormally distributed data at a level of p < 0.05. The groups were defined as statistically homogeneous at T1. A statistical analysis showed that the ET group (mean treatment time 35.3 ± 13.3 months) was significantly associated with a 22.2% lower extraction rate, 15.9% less need for a full fixed appliance, and more than 5° less incisor proclination in the nonextraction cases compared to the LT group (mean treatment time 25.9 ± 8.1 months); treatment time significantly increased in the ET group compared to the LT group. Early Class II treatment resulted in a significant treatment effort reduction in more than one third of the patients and less lower incisor proclination, even if it clinically increased treatment time.

A Simple Technique Using a Modified Nance Appliance as Anchorage for Maxillary Molar Distalization—Two Case Reports

Maxillary molar distalization to correct a dental Class II molar relationship and to create space to relieve crowding has been a long-lasting subject of debate in orthodontics. Generally, to distalize maxillary molars, an intra-arch distalization appliance is favored over an inter-arch appliance since it does not utilize mandibular dentition as an anchorage, so some unwanted side effects on mandibular incisors can be avoided. A variety of intra-arch appliances have been developed to distalize maxillary molars, such as the pendulum, Jones jig, first class appliance, distal jet, and modified C-palatal plate. Although they could achieve efficient molar distalization, the learning curve of proper appliance insertion and activation is relatively long. In addition, the appliances are not comfortable for the patients due to the bulky activation units, especially when the activation units are designed in the palatal area. The current manuscript describes a novel and effective maxillary intra-arch molar distalization appliance—a modified Nance appliance technique, which consists of: (1) palatally, a big acrylic button against the palatal rugae and connected to the premolars with wide mesh pads; (2) buccally, regular brackets on maxillary premolars and first molars with sectional round stainless steel archwires and open coil springs between the second premolar and first molar. Either bilateral or unilateral maxillary molar distalization can be achieved with this appliance, and the Class II elastics are not needed. It is simple to be fabricated, delivered, and activated, and it is comfortable for patients.