ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
Year : 2016 | Volume
: 34
| Issue : 4 | Page : 331-340 |
The effectiveness of pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet distalization techniques in growing children and its effects on anchor unit: A comparative study
Pravinkumar S Marure1, Raju Umaji Patil2, Sumitra Reddy3, Amit Prakash4, Nillachandra Kshetrimayum5, Rajeevkumar Shukla6
1 Department of Orthodontics, MIDSR Dental College and Hospital, Latur, India 2 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India 3 Department of Orthodontics, KLE'S Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 4 Department of Orthodontics, People's College of Dental Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India 5 Department of Orthodontics Unit, SHIJA Hospital and Research Institute, Langol, Imphal, Manipur, India 6 Department of Orthodontics, Mithila Minority Dental College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, Bihar, India
Correspondence Address:
Raju Umaji Patil Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, S. No. 44/1 Vadgaon Budruk, Off Sinhgad Road, Pune - 411 041, Maharashtra India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.191411
Background: A common strategy to correct Class II malocclusions using a nonextraction protocol in children is to move the maxillary molars distally using molar distalization appliances, which usually derive their anchorage from maxillary premolars, causing mesialization of premolars and protrusion of incisors. Objectives: To evaluate the skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes produced by three different distalizing appliances, namely, pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet appliances. Materials and Methods: Sixty-six children of mean age 14.13 years requiring molar distalization were divided into three groups: Group I (pendulum appliance), Group II (K-loop), and Group III (distal jet). Lateral cephalometric films were taken before and after 5 months of molar distalization and following cephalometric parameters were used to assess the effects of maxillary molar distalization, namely, anteroposterior skeletal (SNA/SNB/ANB), vertical skeletal (face height ratio/Frankfort-mandibular plane [FMA]/angle formed between Maxillary plane & Mandibular plane (MM)), interdental (overjet/overbite), maxillary dentoalveolar, and soft tissue parameters. Results: There was no significant age difference between the three groups. In overall treatment changes among the three groups, the Anteroposterior skeletal changes were not statistically significant, vertically FMA angle increased by 1.79° ± 2.25° and overbite reduced by 2.38 ± 1.83 mm. The maxillary first molars were distalized by an average of 4.70 ± 3.01 mm (Upper 6 [U6] to pterygoid vertical [PTV]). The maxillary central incisor labial tipping increased to an average of 1.61 ± 2.73 mm and cant of upper lip increased by 3.40° ± 5.88° are statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: All three distalization techniques in growing children produced significant effects on anchor unit. There was an increase in FMA angle, significant bite opening, proclination of the maxillary incisors and increase in the cant of the upper lip.
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
|
|
Article Access Statistics | | Viewed | 5779 | | Printed | 125 | | Emailed | 0 | | PDF Downloaded | 478 | | Comments | [Add] | |
|

|