Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects.
Prog Orthod. 2014; 15:43.PO

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage).

METHODS

The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001.

RESULTS

In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars.

CONCLUSIONS

The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Private Practice of Orthodontics, Via S.Pellico, 79/b, Arcitate, 21051, Varese, Italy. lisa@lisamariani.it.Insubria University, Via Valleggio, 11, Como, 22100, Italy. vicenza@mainog.com. Ferrara University, Via Savonarola, 9, Ferrara, 44121, Italy. vicenza@mainog.com. Private Practice of Orthodontics, Viale Milano 53, Vicenza, 36100, Italy. vicenza@mainog.com.Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Insubria, Varese, 22100, Italy. alberto.caprioglio@uninsubria.it. Private Practice in Orthodontics, Via San Zeno 1, Pavia, 27100, Italy. alberto.caprioglio@uninsubria.it.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

25138818

Citation

Mariani, Lisa, et al. "Skeletal Versus Conventional Intraoral Anchorage for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion: Dentoalveolar and Skeletal Effects." Progress in Orthodontics, vol. 15, 2014, p. 43.
Mariani L, Maino G, Caprioglio A. Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:43.
Mariani, L., Maino, G., & Caprioglio, A. (2014). Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects. Progress in Orthodontics, 15, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z
Mariani L, Maino G, Caprioglio A. Skeletal Versus Conventional Intraoral Anchorage for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion: Dentoalveolar and Skeletal Effects. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:43. PubMed PMID: 25138818.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects. AU - Mariani,Lisa, AU - Maino,Giuliano, AU - Caprioglio,Alberto, Y1 - 2014/07/30/ PY - 2014/04/08/received PY - 2014/05/22/accepted PY - 2014/8/21/entrez PY - 2014/8/21/pubmed PY - 2016/8/3/medline KW - Class II malocclusion KW - Molar distalization KW - Pendulum KW - Tad's SP - 43 EP - 43 JF - Progress in orthodontics JO - Prog Orthod VL - 15 N2 - BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). METHODS: The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. RESULTS: In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. CONCLUSIONS: The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. SN - 2196-1042 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/25138818/Skeletal_versus_conventional_intraoral_anchorage_for_the_treatment_of_class_II_malocclusion:_dentoalveolar_and_skeletal_effects_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -