Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Pendulum appliances with 2 anchorage designs: conventional anchorage vs bone anchorage.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Mar; 133(3):339.e9-339.e17.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects obtained with 2 types of pendulum appliance with different anchorage designs: bone-anchored pendulum appliance (BAPA) and conventional pendulum appliance (CPA).

METHODS

The sample consisted of 39 patients (25 girls, 14 boys) with Angle Class II molar relationships. Correction of the molar relationship was achieved with the BAPA with palatal intermaxillary fixation screws for anchorage in the first group (n = 22) and with the CPA in the second group (n = 17). Lateral cephalograms before treatment and at the end of distalization were measured, and changes in the groups and the differences between the groups were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

The average distalization times were 6.8 months for the BAPA group and 5.1 months for the CPA group. The maxillary first molars were tipped 9.1 degrees in the BAPA group and 5.3 degrees in the CPA group; the molars moved distally 4.8 mm in the BAPA group and 2.7 mm in the CPA group. Despite mesialization of the premolars and proclination of the incisors with the CPA, both premolars were spontaneously distalized, and the incisors were retruded with the BAPA.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of distal molar movement was similar between the BAPA and the CPA. No anchorage loss or spontaneous distal premolar and incisor movement, which might decrease total treatment time, was seen with the BAPA.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey. omur@baskent.edu.trNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18331928

Citation

Polat-Ozsoy, Omür, et al. "Pendulum Appliances With 2 Anchorage Designs: Conventional Anchorage Vs Bone Anchorage." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 133, no. 3, 2008, pp. 339.e9-339.e17.
Polat-Ozsoy O, Kircelli BH, Arman-Ozçirpici A, et al. Pendulum appliances with 2 anchorage designs: conventional anchorage vs bone anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(3):339.e9-339.e17.
Polat-Ozsoy, O., Kircelli, B. H., Arman-Ozçirpici, A., Pektaş, Z. O., & Uçkan, S. (2008). Pendulum appliances with 2 anchorage designs: conventional anchorage vs bone anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 133(3), e9-e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.002
Polat-Ozsoy O, et al. Pendulum Appliances With 2 Anchorage Designs: Conventional Anchorage Vs Bone Anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(3):339.e9-339.e17. PubMed PMID: 18331928.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Pendulum appliances with 2 anchorage designs: conventional anchorage vs bone anchorage. AU - Polat-Ozsoy,Omür, AU - Kircelli,Beyza Hancioğlu, AU - Arman-Ozçirpici,Ayça, AU - Pektaş,Z Ozgür, AU - Uçkan,Sina, PY - 2007/07/17/received PY - 2007/10/03/revised PY - 2007/10/03/accepted PY - 2008/3/12/pubmed PY - 2008/3/26/medline PY - 2008/3/12/entrez SP - 339.e9 EP - 339.e17 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 133 IS - 3 N2 - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects obtained with 2 types of pendulum appliance with different anchorage designs: bone-anchored pendulum appliance (BAPA) and conventional pendulum appliance (CPA). METHODS: The sample consisted of 39 patients (25 girls, 14 boys) with Angle Class II molar relationships. Correction of the molar relationship was achieved with the BAPA with palatal intermaxillary fixation screws for anchorage in the first group (n = 22) and with the CPA in the second group (n = 17). Lateral cephalograms before treatment and at the end of distalization were measured, and changes in the groups and the differences between the groups were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The average distalization times were 6.8 months for the BAPA group and 5.1 months for the CPA group. The maxillary first molars were tipped 9.1 degrees in the BAPA group and 5.3 degrees in the CPA group; the molars moved distally 4.8 mm in the BAPA group and 2.7 mm in the CPA group. Despite mesialization of the premolars and proclination of the incisors with the CPA, both premolars were spontaneously distalized, and the incisors were retruded with the BAPA. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of distal molar movement was similar between the BAPA and the CPA. No anchorage loss or spontaneous distal premolar and incisor movement, which might decrease total treatment time, was seen with the BAPA. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18331928/Pendulum_appliances_with_2_anchorage_designs:_conventional_anchorage_vs_bone_anchorage_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(07)01027-X DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -