Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances

Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the cha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied oral science 2020-01, Vol.28, p.e20190364-e20190364
Hauptverfasser: Vilanova, Lorena, Henriques, José Fernando Castanha, Patel, Mayara Paim, Reis, Rachelle Simões, Grec, Roberto Henrique da Costa, Aliaga-Del Castillo, Aron, Bellini-Pereira, Silvio Augusto, Janson, Guilherme
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p
ISSN:1678-7757
1678-7765
1678-7765
DOI:10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0364