Cargando…

Comparison of the Pendulum appliance and the Jones Jig: A prospective comparative study

OBJECTIVE: To compare two molar distalization devices, the Pendulum appliance (PA) and the Jones Jig (JJ) in dental Class II patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment and postdistalization lateral cephalograms and study models of 20 subjects (6 males, 14 females) Class II malocclusion subjects w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shetty, Sushruth, Maurya, Rajkumar, Raj, H. V. Pruthvi, Patil, Anand
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28932141
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_295_16
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To compare two molar distalization devices, the Pendulum appliance (PA) and the Jones Jig (JJ) in dental Class II patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment and postdistalization lateral cephalograms and study models of 20 subjects (6 males, 14 females) Class II malocclusion subjects were examined. PA and JJ group both consisted of 10 patients each with a mean pretreatment age of 12 years 1 month for females and 12 years 5 months for males. The PA and the JJ appliance were activated once in a month until Class II molar relationship was corrected to a super Class I molar relationship in both groups. Initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of Paired t-test. RESULTS: Maxillary first molar distalized an average of 3.85 mm in the PA and 2.75 mm in the JJ between T1 and T2; rate of molar distalization was 1.59 mm/month for PA, and the JJ appliance averaged 0.88 mm/month, distal molar tipping was greater in PA (6.2°) than in the JJ (3.9°). Average mesial movement of the premolars was 2.2 mm with PA and JJ both. JJ showed a greater rotation of first molars after distalization as compared to PA. The increase in vertical facial height was also greater for JJ as compared to PA. CONCLUSIONS: Both the appliances were effective in molar distalization with PA requiring less distalization time (16 days less than JJ). Some adverse effects were noted with both which one should strive to control.