Cargando…

Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance

Aim. To investigate and compare the efficiency of two appliances for molar distalization: the bone-anchored distal screw (DS) and the traditional tooth-supported distal jet (DJ) for molar distalization and anchorage loss. Methods. Tests (18 subjects) were treated with a DS and controls (18 subjects)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cozzani, Mauro, Pasini, Marco, Zallio, Francesco, Ritucci, Robert, Mutinelli, Sabrina, Mazzotta, Laura, Giuca, Maria Rita, Piras, Vincenzo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4075073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25018770
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/937059
_version_ 1782323287892688896
author Cozzani, Mauro
Pasini, Marco
Zallio, Francesco
Ritucci, Robert
Mutinelli, Sabrina
Mazzotta, Laura
Giuca, Maria Rita
Piras, Vincenzo
author_facet Cozzani, Mauro
Pasini, Marco
Zallio, Francesco
Ritucci, Robert
Mutinelli, Sabrina
Mazzotta, Laura
Giuca, Maria Rita
Piras, Vincenzo
author_sort Cozzani, Mauro
collection PubMed
description Aim. To investigate and compare the efficiency of two appliances for molar distalization: the bone-anchored distal screw (DS) and the traditional tooth-supported distal jet (DJ) for molar distalization and anchorage loss. Methods. Tests (18 subjects) were treated with a DS and controls (18 subjects) were treated with a DJ. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before and at the end of molar distalization and were analysed. Shapiro Wilk test, unpaired t-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied according to values distribution. The α level was fixed at 0.05. Results. Maxillary first molars were successfully distalized into a Class I relationship in all patients. The mean molar distalization and treatment time were similar in both groups. The DS group exhibited a spontaneous distalization (2.1 ± 0.9 mm) of the first premolar with control of anchorage loss, distal tipping, extrusion, and skeletal changes. Conclusions. The DS is an adequate compliance-free distalizing appliance that can be used safely for the correction of Class II malocclusions. In comparison to the traditional DJ, the DS enables not only a good rate of molar distalization, but also a spontaneous distalization of the first premolars.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4075073
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40750732014-07-13 Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance Cozzani, Mauro Pasini, Marco Zallio, Francesco Ritucci, Robert Mutinelli, Sabrina Mazzotta, Laura Giuca, Maria Rita Piras, Vincenzo Int J Dent Research Article Aim. To investigate and compare the efficiency of two appliances for molar distalization: the bone-anchored distal screw (DS) and the traditional tooth-supported distal jet (DJ) for molar distalization and anchorage loss. Methods. Tests (18 subjects) were treated with a DS and controls (18 subjects) were treated with a DJ. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before and at the end of molar distalization and were analysed. Shapiro Wilk test, unpaired t-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied according to values distribution. The α level was fixed at 0.05. Results. Maxillary first molars were successfully distalized into a Class I relationship in all patients. The mean molar distalization and treatment time were similar in both groups. The DS group exhibited a spontaneous distalization (2.1 ± 0.9 mm) of the first premolar with control of anchorage loss, distal tipping, extrusion, and skeletal changes. Conclusions. The DS is an adequate compliance-free distalizing appliance that can be used safely for the correction of Class II malocclusions. In comparison to the traditional DJ, the DS enables not only a good rate of molar distalization, but also a spontaneous distalization of the first premolars. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4075073/ /pubmed/25018770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/937059 Text en Copyright © 2014 Mauro Cozzani et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cozzani, Mauro
Pasini, Marco
Zallio, Francesco
Ritucci, Robert
Mutinelli, Sabrina
Mazzotta, Laura
Giuca, Maria Rita
Piras, Vincenzo
Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
title Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
title_full Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
title_fullStr Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
title_short Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
title_sort comparison of maxillary molar distalization with an implant-supported distal jet and a traditional tooth-supported distal jet appliance
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4075073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25018770
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/937059
work_keys_str_mv AT cozzanimauro comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT pasinimarco comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT zalliofrancesco comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT rituccirobert comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT mutinellisabrina comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT mazzottalaura comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT giucamariarita comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance
AT pirasvincenzo comparisonofmaxillarymolardistalizationwithanimplantsupporteddistaljetandatraditionaltoothsupporteddistaljetappliance