Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of two maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet.
World J Orthod. 2005 Winter; 6(4):382-90.WJ

Abstract

AIMS

Previous studies on maxillary molar distalization have usually concentrated on only one appliance and featured small sample sizes. The purpose of this retrospective study was two-fold: (1) to determine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of 3 molar distalization appliances, 2 of which do not depend upon patient compliance (ie, distal jet and Greenfield molar distalizing appliance) and 1 that does (ie, sagittal appliance combined with cervical headgear); and (2) to determine differences in treatment effects among the 3 appliances.

METHODS

Pretreatment and post-distalization cephalometric radiographs were obtained for each appliance (14 females and 11 males for the distal jet; 12 females and 13 males for the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance; and 17 females and 13 males for the sagittal appliance with headgear).

RESULTS

Pretreatment to transition evaluation showed significant distal movement of the first molars for the distal jet (3.4 mm), the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (3.9 mm), and the sagittal appliance with headgear (2.1 mm). Distal tipping of the first molar was seen in all samples, but significantly more so in the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (6.5 degrees +/- 6.6) and the sagittal appliance with headgear (13.5 degrees +/- 8. 1) than in the distal jet (3.2 degrees +/- 2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary molar distalization was effective using the distal jet, the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance, and the sagittal appliance with headgear, but better control of molar bodily movement was reported with the distal jet.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, Boston University Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16379210

Citation

Ferguson, Donald J., et al. "A Comparison of Two Maxillary Molar Distalizing Appliances With the Distal Jet." World Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 6, no. 4, 2005, pp. 382-90.
Ferguson DJ, Carano A, Bowman SJ, et al. A comparison of two maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet. World J Orthod. 2005;6(4):382-90.
Ferguson, D. J., Carano, A., Bowman, S. J., Davis, E. C., Gutierrez Vega, M. E., & Lee, S. H. (2005). A comparison of two maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet. World Journal of Orthodontics, 6(4), 382-90.
Ferguson DJ, et al. A Comparison of Two Maxillary Molar Distalizing Appliances With the Distal Jet. World J Orthod. 2005;6(4):382-90. PubMed PMID: 16379210.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of two maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet. AU - Ferguson,Donald J, AU - Carano,Aldo, AU - Bowman,S Jay, AU - Davis,Edward C, AU - Gutierrez Vega,Maria E, AU - Lee,Sandra H, PY - 2005/12/29/pubmed PY - 2006/1/21/medline PY - 2005/12/29/entrez SP - 382 EP - 90 JF - World journal of orthodontics JO - World J Orthod VL - 6 IS - 4 N2 - AIMS: Previous studies on maxillary molar distalization have usually concentrated on only one appliance and featured small sample sizes. The purpose of this retrospective study was two-fold: (1) to determine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of 3 molar distalization appliances, 2 of which do not depend upon patient compliance (ie, distal jet and Greenfield molar distalizing appliance) and 1 that does (ie, sagittal appliance combined with cervical headgear); and (2) to determine differences in treatment effects among the 3 appliances. METHODS: Pretreatment and post-distalization cephalometric radiographs were obtained for each appliance (14 females and 11 males for the distal jet; 12 females and 13 males for the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance; and 17 females and 13 males for the sagittal appliance with headgear). RESULTS: Pretreatment to transition evaluation showed significant distal movement of the first molars for the distal jet (3.4 mm), the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (3.9 mm), and the sagittal appliance with headgear (2.1 mm). Distal tipping of the first molar was seen in all samples, but significantly more so in the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (6.5 degrees +/- 6.6) and the sagittal appliance with headgear (13.5 degrees +/- 8. 1) than in the distal jet (3.2 degrees +/- 2.8). CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary molar distalization was effective using the distal jet, the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance, and the sagittal appliance with headgear, but better control of molar bodily movement was reported with the distal jet. SN - 1530-5678 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16379210/A_comparison_of_two_maxillary_molar_distalizing_appliances_with_the_distal_jet_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -